You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2006/07/05 15:12:07 UTC
[Fwd: svn commit: r419140 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS]
Did I understand correctly that this needs to be refactored, or
unfactored, to follow the 2.2.x authnz api?
Please readd when this is available!
Bill
Re: [Fwd: svn commit: r419140 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS]
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Nick Kew wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 July 2006 17:14, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Nick Kew wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 05 July 2006 14:12, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>>> Did I understand correctly that this needs to be refactored, or
>>>> unfactored, to follow the 2.2.x authnz api?
>>> The module I originally committed to trunk works with 2.2.x.
>>> It wasn't in the release because it was too new and untested
>>> at the time of 2.2.0 release.
>>>
>>> That got lost in the subsequent refactoring.
>> AHHH - got it. So as long as the pointer you post is relative
>> to its last pre-2.3 refactor revision, it can be moved. Can
>> you point us at the source revision you want to port in moving
>> this back to 2.2?
>
> Looks like r345389
>
> As per the STATUS proposal, I'd like to see it in there.
> But it wasn't a backport I ever expected to collect three
> +1s without some discussion on-list.
Well as it is an improvement and builds with any APR 1.2, you've got my +1
to push this (I suggest svn cp'ing over the old code and just have one path
through svn for consistency /shrug.) But I'd reserve declaring it 'production
ready' till some serious experimental adoption occurs.
Bill
Re: [Fwd: svn commit: r419140 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS]
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 17:14, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Nick Kew wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 July 2006 14:12, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >> Did I understand correctly that this needs to be refactored, or
> >> unfactored, to follow the 2.2.x authnz api?
> >
> > The module I originally committed to trunk works with 2.2.x.
> > It wasn't in the release because it was too new and untested
> > at the time of 2.2.0 release.
> >
> > That got lost in the subsequent refactoring.
>
> AHHH - got it. So as long as the pointer you post is relative
> to its last pre-2.3 refactor revision, it can be moved. Can
> you point us at the source revision you want to port in moving
> this back to 2.2?
Looks like r345389
As per the STATUS proposal, I'd like to see it in there.
But it wasn't a backport I ever expected to collect three
+1s without some discussion on-list.
--
Nick Kew
Re: [Fwd: svn commit: r419140 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS]
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Nick Kew wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 July 2006 14:12, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Did I understand correctly that this needs to be refactored, or
>> unfactored, to follow the 2.2.x authnz api?
>
> The module I originally committed to trunk works with 2.2.x.
> It wasn't in the release because it was too new and untested
> at the time of 2.2.0 release.
>
> That got lost in the subsequent refactoring.
AHHH - got it. So as long as the pointer you post is relative
to its last pre-2.3 refactor revision, it can be moved. Can
you point us at the source revision you want to port in moving
this back to 2.2?
Bill
Re: [Fwd: svn commit: r419140 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS]
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 14:12, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Did I understand correctly that this needs to be refactored, or
> unfactored, to follow the 2.2.x authnz api?
The module I originally committed to trunk works with 2.2.x.
It wasn't in the release because it was too new and untested
at the time of 2.2.0 release.
That got lost in the subsequent refactoring.
--
Nick Kew