You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to cvs@httpd.apache.org by rj...@apache.org on 2019/08/09 08:30:21 UTC
svn commit: r1864774 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Author: rjung
Date: Fri Aug 9 08:30:21 2019
New Revision: 1864774
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1864774&view=rev
Log:
ENOCOFFEE.
Modified:
httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS?rev=1864774&r1=1864773&r2=1864774&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS Fri Aug 9 08:30:21 2019
@@ -164,8 +164,6 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1709121
2.4.x patch: svn merge -c 1709121 ^/httpd/httpd/trunk .
+1: covener, jorton,
- rjung: shouldn't the merging respect the "add" set flag? Otherwise it seems
- impossible to merge a 0 value on top of a non-zero value.
PATCHES/ISSUES THAT ARE BEING WORKED
Re: svn commit: r1864774 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Posted by "stefan@eissing.org" <st...@eissing.org>.
;-)
> Am 09.08.2019 um 10:30 schrieb rjung@apache.org:
>
> Author: rjung
> Date: Fri Aug 9 08:30:21 2019
> New Revision: 1864774
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1864774&view=rev
> Log:
> ENOCOFFEE.
>
> Modified:
> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>
> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS?rev=1864774&r1=1864773&r2=1864774&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original)
> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS Fri Aug 9 08:30:21 2019
> @@ -164,8 +164,6 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
> trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1709121
> 2.4.x patch: svn merge -c 1709121 ^/httpd/httpd/trunk .
> +1: covener, jorton,
> - rjung: shouldn't the merging respect the "add" set flag? Otherwise it seems
> - impossible to merge a 0 value on top of a non-zero value.
>
>
> PATCHES/ISSUES THAT ARE BEING WORKED
>
>