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 2017/11/01 23:58:49 UTC

Question about r1496711 which has been silently merged into 2.4.x branch

Hi,

not sure on how to deal with the following issue. It has been found in a 
review of some trunk/CHANGES entries in order to remove some backported 
items.


In commit r1772331, r1496711 has been silently merged into the 2.4.x branch.

CHANGES for r149671 is:

   *) mod_file_cache: mod_file_cache should be able to serve files that
      haven't had a Content-Type set via e.g. mod_mime. [Eric Covener]


Should this be:
    [1] reverted
    [2] added in the CHANGES of 2.4.x in the revision where it has been 
released
    [3] voted to keep track of it afterward
    [4] updated in the r1772331 commit message
?

My guess is [2]+[4]+removal from trunk/CHANGES.

CJ



Re: Question about r1496711 which has been silently merged into 2.4.x branch

Posted by Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
Le 02/11/2017 à 01:56, Eric Covener a écrit :
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Christophe JAILLET
> <ch...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> not sure on how to deal with the following issue. It has been found in a
>> review of some trunk/CHANGES entries in order to remove some backported
>> items.
>>
>>
>> In commit r1772331, r1496711 has been silently merged into the 2.4.x branch.
>>
>> CHANGES for r149671 is:
>>
>>    *) mod_file_cache: mod_file_cache should be able to serve files that
>>       haven't had a Content-Type set via e.g. mod_mime. [Eric Covener]
>>
>>
>> Should this be:
>>     [1] reverted
>>     [2] added in the CHANGES of 2.4.x in the revision where it has been
>> released
>>     [3] voted to keep track of it afterward
>>     [4] updated in the r1772331 commit message
>> ?
>>
>> My guess is [2]+[4]+removal from trunk/CHANGES.
>>
> I think that's best as well. Thanks for catching it.
>
> I vaguely recall that I later found things that made mod_file_cache
> almost certainly unused in practice.
>
Updated



Re: Question about r1496711 which has been silently merged into 2.4.x branch

Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Christophe JAILLET
<ch...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> not sure on how to deal with the following issue. It has been found in a
> review of some trunk/CHANGES entries in order to remove some backported
> items.
>
>
> In commit r1772331, r1496711 has been silently merged into the 2.4.x branch.
>
> CHANGES for r149671 is:
>
>   *) mod_file_cache: mod_file_cache should be able to serve files that
>      haven't had a Content-Type set via e.g. mod_mime. [Eric Covener]
>
>
> Should this be:
>    [1] reverted
>    [2] added in the CHANGES of 2.4.x in the revision where it has been
> released
>    [3] voted to keep track of it afterward
>    [4] updated in the r1772331 commit message
> ?
>
> My guess is [2]+[4]+removal from trunk/CHANGES.
>

I think that's best as well. Thanks for catching it.

I vaguely recall that I later found things that made mod_file_cache
almost certainly unused in practice.