You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to cvs@httpd.apache.org by rp...@apache.org on 2007/10/05 15:22:22 UTC
svn commit: r582251 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Author: rpluem
Date: Fri Oct 5 06:22:22 2007
New Revision: 582251
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=582251&view=rev
Log:
* Cast some votes, add some comments, remove obsolete comments.
Modified:
httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS?rev=582251&r1=582250&r2=582251&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS Fri Oct 5 06:22:22 2007
@@ -227,27 +227,25 @@
* mod_proxy_http: Correctly parse all Connection headers in proxy.
PR 43509
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=580457
- +1: niq
- +0: rpluem says: Please give struct foo a meaningful name first.
- -0: jim says: Agree with rpluem. Actually, I'd veto this patch
- based simply on that naming if I could.
+ +1: niq, rpluem
niq: changed the name. Resisted temptation to use "pooltabletime".
+ rpluem says: Revision of name change is r581030.
* mod_proxy_http: Remove Warning headers with wrong date
PR 16138
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=580782
+1: niq
- +0: rpluem says: Please give struct foo a meaningful name first.
- -0: jim says: Agree with rpluem. Actually, I'd veto this patch
- based simply on that naming if I could.
+ -1: rpluem says: Patch does not apply cleanly even if r580457 is
+ ported back first.
niq: changed the name. Resisted temptation to use "pooltabletime".
+ rpluem says: Revision of name change is r581030.
* mod_proxy: Don't by default violate RFC2616 by setting
Max-Forwards when the client didn't send it to us.
PR 16137
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=581117 (code)
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=581253 (docs)
- +1: niq
+ +1: niq, rpluem
PATCHES/ISSUES THAT ARE STALLED
Re: svn commit: r582251 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 10/05/2007 03:53 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:22:22 -0000
> rpluem@apache.org wrote:
>
>> * mod_proxy_http: Remove Warning headers with wrong date
>> PR 16138
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=580782
>> +1: niq
>> - +0: rpluem says: Please give struct foo a meaningful name first.
>> - -0: jim says: Agree with rpluem. Actually, I'd veto this patch
>> - based simply on that naming if I could.
>> + -1: rpluem says: Patch does not apply cleanly even if r580457 is
>> + ported back first.
>> niq: changed the name. Resisted temptation to use
>> "pooltabletime".
>> + rpluem says: Revision of name change is r581030.
>
> I'm confused. What failed to apply there? Are we missing
> some other patch required for this one?
I am confused too. Normally I use svn merge for backporting. This fails
with a conflict (svn merge for r580457 works, svn merge for r580782 fails
with a conflict on mod_proxy_http.c).
But if I backport r580457 with svn merge (which works), get the diff
for r580782 via
svn diff -r580781:580782 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk
and apply it via patch it works with some fuzz. Strange.
So my -1 can be seen as moot. I will do the review itself later and vote
accordingly.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: svn commit: r582251 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:22:22 -0000
rpluem@apache.org wrote:
> * mod_proxy_http: Remove Warning headers with wrong date
> PR 16138
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=580782
> +1: niq
> - +0: rpluem says: Please give struct foo a meaningful name first.
> - -0: jim says: Agree with rpluem. Actually, I'd veto this patch
> - based simply on that naming if I could.
> + -1: rpluem says: Patch does not apply cleanly even if r580457 is
> + ported back first.
> niq: changed the name. Resisted temptation to use
> "pooltabletime".
> + rpluem says: Revision of name change is r581030.
I'm confused. What failed to apply there? Are we missing
some other patch required for this one?
--
Nick Kew
Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/