You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to cvs@httpd.apache.org by rp...@apache.org on 2007/05/17 23:13:31 UTC
svn commit: r539117 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Author: rpluem
Date: Thu May 17 14:13:30 2007
New Revision: 539117
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=539117
Log:
* Vote, promote, comment
Modified:
httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS?view=diff&rev=539117&r1=539116&r2=539117
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS Thu May 17 14:13:30 2007
@@ -105,6 +105,15 @@
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=520733
+1: wrowe, rpluem, niq
+ * mod_disk_cache: Allow Vary'd content to be refreshed properly.
+ Trunk version of patch:
+ http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=538992
+ http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=538997
+ http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=539054
+ 2.2.x version of patch:
+ (Applies cleanly)
+ +1: jerenkrantz, fielding, rpluem
+
PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
* ApacheMonitor: Fix Windows Vista detection.
@@ -259,15 +268,9 @@
Otherwise +1.
jerenkrantz: As I replied, I don't care either way. I was just trying to
minimize the delta against 2.2.x.
-
- * mod_disk_cache: Allow Vary'd content to be refreshed properly.
- Trunk version of patch:
- http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=538992
- http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=538997
- http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=539054
- 2.2.x version of patch:
- (Applies cleanly)
- +1: jerenkrantz, fielding
+ rpluem : Now that CacheIgnoreQueryString has been backported r538807
+ applies cleanly to 2.2.x. So I assume it is ok to use
+ r538807 instead of max-age-2.2.x.patch.
* mod_cache: Let Cache-Control max-age set the expiration date.
Trunk version of patch:
Re: svn commit: r539117 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 5/17/07, Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org> wrote:
> As Roy has already voted for it before I added my comment, I just wanted to give
> him a chance to give a comment if he thinks that this is needed (in the same way as
> I wanted to give you a chance to comment). But in this simple case it may not be
> needed to wait. So feel free to merge r538807 into 2.2.x if you like.
No rush. I'll let it sit for a bit and come back to it later this evening.
Thanks! -- justin
Re: svn commit: r539117 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On May 17, 2007, at 2:48 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> On 05/17/2007 11:28 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> On 5/17/07, rpluem@apache.org <rp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> + rpluem : Now that CacheIgnoreQueryString has been
>>> backported
>>> r538807
>>> + applies cleanly to 2.2.x. So I assume it is ok
>>> to use
>>> + r538807 instead of max-age-2.2.x.patch.
>>
>>
>> Aye - that's fine and just keeps them in sync.
>>
>> Do you want to do the merge or shall I? =)
>
> As Roy has already voted for it before I added my comment, I just
> wanted to give
> him a chance to give a comment if he thinks that this is needed (in
> the same way as
> I wanted to give you a chance to comment). But in this simple case
> it may not be
> needed to wait. So feel free to merge r538807 into 2.2.x if you like.
Go ahead -- I tested trunk and visually inspected the patches, so the
merged version is okay by me.
....Roy
Re: svn commit: r539117 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 05/17/2007 11:28 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 5/17/07, rpluem@apache.org <rp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> + rpluem : Now that CacheIgnoreQueryString has been backported
>> r538807
>> + applies cleanly to 2.2.x. So I assume it is ok to use
>> + r538807 instead of max-age-2.2.x.patch.
>
>
> Aye - that's fine and just keeps them in sync.
>
> Do you want to do the merge or shall I? =)
As Roy has already voted for it before I added my comment, I just wanted to give
him a chance to give a comment if he thinks that this is needed (in the same way as
I wanted to give you a chance to comment). But in this simple case it may not be
needed to wait. So feel free to merge r538807 into 2.2.x if you like.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: svn commit: r539117 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 5/17/07, rpluem@apache.org <rp...@apache.org> wrote:
> + rpluem : Now that CacheIgnoreQueryString has been backported r538807
> + applies cleanly to 2.2.x. So I assume it is ok to use
> + r538807 instead of max-age-2.2.x.patch.
Aye - that's fine and just keeps them in sync.
Do you want to do the merge or shall I? =)
Thanks! -- justin