You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to cvs@httpd.apache.org by jo...@apache.org on 2013/11/15 16:45:22 UTC
svn commit: r1542297 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Author: jorton
Date: Fri Nov 15 15:45:21 2013
New Revision: 1542297
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1542297
Log:
Vote, promote.
Modified:
httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS?rev=1542297&r1=1542296&r2=1542297&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS Fri Nov 15 15:45:21 2013
@@ -97,6 +97,49 @@ RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS:
PATCHES ACCEPTED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
[ start all new proposals below, under PATCHES PROPOSED. ]
+ * mod_ssl: improve ephemeral key handling - in particular, support DH params
+ with more than 1024 bits, and allow custom configuration. For a detailed
+ list of the changes, see the text at the beginning of the 2.4.x patch.
+ trunk patches: https://svn.apache.org/r1526168
+ https://svn.apache.org/r1527291
+ https://svn.apache.org/r1527294
+ https://svn.apache.org/r1527295
+ https://svn.apache.org/r1527926
+ 2.4.x patch: https://people.apache.org/~kbrand/mod_ssl-2.4.x-ekh.diff
+ +1: kbrand, jim, jorton
+ [wrowe comments] is it possible to split the patch into 'accepted for 2.2'
+ which is straightforward to review (and commit seperately) from those
+ features 'new to 2.4'? I think that would attract the necessary eyeballs.
+ kbrand: not sure what exactly "accepted for 2.2" would mean here, basically
+ all these changes are enhancements, not bug fixes (and only the
+ latter I would consider for backporting to a "legacy branch").
+ Identifying those bullets at the beginning of the 2.4.x patch
+ which you consider "accepted 2.2" might help / give further clues,
+ though it should be noted that mod_ssl in 2.4 has drifted
+ away from 2.2 quite somewhat meanwhile (think of the removal of
+ ssl_toolkit_compat.h e.g.).
+
+ * easy proposals to synch 2.4.x and trunk
+ - mod_proxy.c: Eclipse code analysis warning
+ - mod_mime_magic.c: Reduce stack usage by 3k
+ - mod_log_config.c: style fixes, add comment, no code change
+ - mod_authnz_ldap.c: attribute and error reason reversed
+ trunk patches:
+ - http://svn.apache.org/r1533065
+ - http://svn.apache.org/r1491724
+ - http://svn.apache.org/r1425360
+ - http://svn.apache.org/r1496194
+ 2.4.x patch: trunk patches work
+ +1: jailletc36, jim, jorton
+
+ * mod_proxy_fcgi: Sync with trunk
+ trunk patch: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1523281
+ https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1524368
+ https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1525276
+ https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1525280
+ https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1525281
+ 2.4.x patch: http://people.apache.org/~jim/patches/proxy-fcgi.patch
+ +1: trawick, jim, jorton
PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
[ New proposals should be added at the end of the list ]
@@ -152,28 +195,6 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
is the state of that connection messed up from leaving
ssl_proceed_handshake() early?
- * mod_ssl: improve ephemeral key handling - in particular, support DH params
- with more than 1024 bits, and allow custom configuration. For a detailed
- list of the changes, see the text at the beginning of the 2.4.x patch.
- trunk patches: https://svn.apache.org/r1526168
- https://svn.apache.org/r1527291
- https://svn.apache.org/r1527294
- https://svn.apache.org/r1527295
- https://svn.apache.org/r1527926
- 2.4.x patch: https://people.apache.org/~kbrand/mod_ssl-2.4.x-ekh.diff
- +1: kbrand, jim
- [wrowe comments] is it possible to split the patch into 'accepted for 2.2'
- which is straightforward to review (and commit seperately) from those
- features 'new to 2.4'? I think that would attract the necessary eyeballs.
- kbrand: not sure what exactly "accepted for 2.2" would mean here, basically
- all these changes are enhancements, not bug fixes (and only the
- latter I would consider for backporting to a "legacy branch").
- Identifying those bullets at the beginning of the 2.4.x patch
- which you consider "accepted 2.2" might help / give further clues,
- though it should be noted that mod_ssl in 2.4 has drifted
- away from 2.2 quite somewhat meanwhile (think of the removal of
- ssl_toolkit_compat.h e.g.).
-
* mod_auth_form: Make sure the optional functions are loaded even when
the AuthFormProvider isn't specified.
trunk patch: https://svn.apache.org/r1531672
@@ -193,16 +214,8 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1540179
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1540220
2.4.x patch: http://people.apache.org/~jim/patches/slotmem-error.patch
- +1: jim
+ +1: jim, jorton
- * mod_proxy_fcgi: Sync with trunk
- trunk patch: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1523281
- https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1524368
- https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1525276
- https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1525280
- https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1525281
- 2.4.x patch: http://people.apache.org/~jim/patches/proxy-fcgi.patch
- +1: trawick, jim
* mod_proxy: support Unix domain sockets
trunk patch: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1451633
@@ -220,19 +233,6 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
2.4.x patch: http://people.apache.org/~jim/patches/uds-2.4.patch
+1: jim
- * easy proposals to synch 2.4.x and trunk
- - mod_proxy.c: Eclipse code analysis warning
- - mod_mime_magic.c: Reduce stack usage by 3k
- - mod_log_config.c: style fixes, add comment, no code change
- - mod_authnz_ldap.c: attribute and error reason reversed
- trunk patches:
- - http://svn.apache.org/r1533065
- - http://svn.apache.org/r1491724
- - http://svn.apache.org/r1425360
- - http://svn.apache.org/r1496194
- 2.4.x patch: trunk patches work
- +1: jailletc36, jim
-
OTHER PROPOSALS
* A list of further possible backports can be found at: