You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net> on 2006/01/24 22:06:09 UTC
Stalled "accepted" patches in 2.0.x
I'm comfortable backporting all of the 2.0.x patches marked ACCEPTED apart
from the following two:
*) mod_actions: Regression from 1.3: the file referred to must exist.
Solve this by introducing the "virtual" modifier to the Action
directive. PR 28553.
modules/mappers/mod_actions.c: r1.32, r1.34
jerenkrantz: Icky side-effect of the *t == '0' check.
+1: nd, jerenkrantz, wrowe, jim
-0: by rbb (inconsistent to 1.3, discussion on dev@)
nd: I'm going to reverse the default
jerenkrantz, striker: I'm confused as to the status of this backport.
I have to agree with the last point. Is this accepted, or is it not, and
what are the subversion revision numbers? or where is a patch I can
apply?
*) Win32: Move call to mpm_service_install to the rewrite_args hook
from the post_config hook.
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=154319
+1: stoddard, striker, wrowe (as corrected in subsequent patches)
What are the subsequent patches being referred to? What exactly is under
proposal here?
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
Re: Stalled "accepted" patches in 2.0.x
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
André Malo wrote:
> * William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>What is the behavior, is 2.2 now consistent to 1.3? If so I strongly
>>suggest we 'fix' 2.0 to be consistent with both. If it remains 'broken'
>>in 2.2, then let's leave the behavior alone on both 2.0 and 2.2 for one
>>more release cycle.
>
> 2.2 is consistent with 2.0 (and <= 1.3.10 which was forked to 2.0).
Let's not try to touch in 2.2.1 or 2.0.56 - and start a dialog on what is
right and why :)
Re: Stalled "accepted" patches in 2.0.x
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> What is the behavior, is 2.2 now consistent to 1.3? If so I strongly
> suggest we 'fix' 2.0 to be consistent with both. If it remains 'broken'
> in 2.2, then let's leave the behavior alone on both 2.0 and 2.2 for one
> more release cycle.
2.2 is consistent with 2.0 (and <= 1.3.10 which was forked to 2.0).
nd
--
"Umfassendes Werk (auch fuer Umsteiger vom Apache 1.3)"
-- aus einer Rezension
<http://pub.perlig.de/books.html#apache2>
Re: Stalled "accepted" patches in 2.0.x
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
André Malo wrote:
> * Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
>
>
>>I'm comfortable backporting all of the 2.0.x patches marked ACCEPTED
>>apart from the following two:
>>
>> *) mod_actions: Regression from 1.3: the file referred to must exist.
>> Solve this by introducing the "virtual" modifier to the Action
>> directive. PR 28553.
>> modules/mappers/mod_actions.c: r1.32, r1.34
>> jerenkrantz: Icky side-effect of the *t == '0' check.
>> +1: nd, jerenkrantz, wrowe, jim
>> -0: by rbb (inconsistent to 1.3, discussion on dev@)
>> nd: I'm going to reverse the default
>> jerenkrantz, striker: I'm confused as to the status of this
>>backport.
>>
>>I have to agree with the last point. Is this accepted, or is it not, and
>>what are the subversion revision numbers? or where is a patch I can
>>apply?
>
> as 2.2 is out yet and I didn't make it so far, I'd say, drop this one,
> because changing behaviour would now confuse people.
What is the behavior, is 2.2 now consistent to 1.3? If so I strongly suggest
we 'fix' 2.0 to be consistent with both. If it remains 'broken' in 2.2, then
let's leave the behavior alone on both 2.0 and 2.2 for one more release cycle.
Re: Stalled "accepted" patches in 2.0.x
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> I'm comfortable backporting all of the 2.0.x patches marked ACCEPTED
> apart from the following two:
>
> *) mod_actions: Regression from 1.3: the file referred to must exist.
> Solve this by introducing the "virtual" modifier to the Action
> directive. PR 28553.
> modules/mappers/mod_actions.c: r1.32, r1.34
> jerenkrantz: Icky side-effect of the *t == '0' check.
> +1: nd, jerenkrantz, wrowe, jim
> -0: by rbb (inconsistent to 1.3, discussion on dev@)
> nd: I'm going to reverse the default
> jerenkrantz, striker: I'm confused as to the status of this
> backport.
>
> I have to agree with the last point. Is this accepted, or is it not, and
> what are the subversion revision numbers? or where is a patch I can
> apply?
as 2.2 is out yet and I didn't make it so far, I'd say, drop this one,
because changing behaviour would now confuse people.
nd
--
Winnetous Erbe: <http://pub.perlig.de/books.html#apache2>