You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr> on 2012/12/04 23:02:15 UTC
Question about revision 1070179 (mod_cache) that has been reverted
on 2.4.x but not on trunk
Hi, list.
On trunk, we can find at revision 1070179
(http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&sortby=date&revision=1070179) a
patch which is about:
mod_cache: When a request other than GET or HEAD arrives, we must
invalidate existing
cache entities as per RFC2616 13.10. PR 15868.
This was part of version 2.3.x, so it is present both on what became
2.4.x branch and what is actually trunk.
However, this patch was reverted on 2.4.x at revision 1208384
(http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&sortby=date&revision=1208384).
Apparently it is still present on trunk.
I was wondering, if it should be reverted on trunk also ?
Best regards,
CJ
Re: Question about revision 1070179 (mod_cache) that has been reverted on 2.4.x but not on trunk
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 05 Dec 2012, at 12:02 AM, Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On trunk, we can find at revision 1070179 (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&sortby=date&revision=1070179) a patch which is about:
>
> mod_cache: When a request other than GET or HEAD arrives, we must invalidate existing
> cache entities as per RFC2616 13.10. PR 15868.
>
> This was part of version 2.3.x, so it is present both on what became 2.4.x branch and what is actually trunk.
>
>
> However, this patch was reverted on 2.4.x at revision 1208384 (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&sortby=date&revision=1208384). Apparently it is still present on trunk.
>
>
> I was wondering, if it should be reverted on trunk also ?
The discussion attached the commit covers this:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/395830?do=post_view_threaded#395830
The patch needs to be updated in line with httpbis p6, once that's done the issue can be resolved. As to whether it could be backported to v2.4 I am not sure, if not we'd have to wait till v2.6 for it.
Regards,
Graham
--