You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to cvs@httpd.apache.org by je...@apache.org on 2005/04/06 19:17:54 UTC
svn commit: r160313 - httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
Author: jerenkrantz
Date: Wed Apr 6 10:17:53 2005
New Revision: 160313
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=160313
Log:
Remove merged backport, block one, vote for one.
Modified:
httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS?view=diff&r1=160312&r2=160313
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS Wed Apr 6 10:17:53 2005
@@ -216,20 +216,19 @@
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=154319
+1: stoddard, striker
- * mod_dav: Export functions so that Win32 can use them as was intended.
- svn rev 155345
- http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=155345
- +1: jerenkrantz, pquerna, striker
-
- * don't propagate input headers describing a body to a GET subrequest
+ * don't propagate input headers describing a body to a GET subrequest
with no body
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=158798
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=159410
+1: gregames
+ -1: jerenkrantz (read_length isn't a sufficient check to see if a body
+ is present in the request; presence of T-E and C-L in
+ the headers is the correct flag.)
* mod_version: New Module, Backport from trunk.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/metadata/mod_version.c
- +1: pquerna
+ (Also need to backport docs, and build system stuff.)
+ +1: pquerna, jerenkrantz
PATCHES TO BACKPORT THAT ARE ON HOLD OR NOT GOING ANYWHERE SOON:
@@ -382,6 +381,7 @@
non experimental status.
+1: bnicholes, wrowe
+0: minfrin (wait till the last cache bugs are ironed out)
+ -1: jerenkrantz
* httpd-std.conf and friends;
Re: svn commit: r160313 - httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:54 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> At 12:17 PM 4/6/2005, you wrote:
>> Author: jerenkrantz
>> Remove merged backport, block one, vote for one.
>> @@ -382,6 +381,7 @@
>> non experimental status.
>> +1: bnicholes, wrowe
>> +0: minfrin (wait till the last cache bugs are ironed out)
>> + -1: jerenkrantz
>
> Technical justification for veto? Or is this just a straightforward
> objection for majority vote?
I took that section to be majority vote not veto. -- justin
Re: svn commit: r160313 - httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 12:17 PM 4/6/2005, you wrote:
>Author: jerenkrantz
>Remove merged backport, block one, vote for one.
>@@ -382,6 +381,7 @@
> non experimental status.
> +1: bnicholes, wrowe
> +0: minfrin (wait till the last cache bugs are ironed out)
>+ -1: jerenkrantz
Technical justification for veto? Or is this just a straightforward
objection for majority vote?