You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com> on 2007/10/05 15:53:49 UTC

Re: svn commit: r582251 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS

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/

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