You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de> on 2003/01/25 01:11:38 UTC
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/mappers mod_rewrite.c
* nd@apache.org wrote:
> backport from 2.1: allow RewriteEngine Off even if Options -FollowSymlinks
hmm, how is it? Is a fulfilled 2.0 backport vote sufficient to port it back
to 1.3 or would I need another voting?
nd
--
Da fällt mir ein, wieso gibt es eigentlich in Unicode kein
"i" mit einem Herzchen als Tüpfelchen? Das wär sooo süüss!
-- Björn Höhrmann in darw
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/mappers mod_rewrite.c
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> hmm, how is it? Is a fulfilled 2.0 backport vote sufficient to port
>> it back to 1.3 or would I need another voting?
>
> Is the change the same? Would the same patch apply to 2.0 as to 1.3?
> If so, then I think you'd be safe.
Exactly the same change and patch, apart from the line numbers ...
Well, I think, I'll put it in, if there are no upcoming objections.
> If it'd require more tweaking,
> then I think you'd be best off asking for another vote (after posting
> the 1.3-specific changes).
Okay, sounds fair :)
nd
--
print "Just Another Perl Hacker";
# André Malo, <http://pub.perlig.de/> #
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/mappers mod_rewrite.c
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
--On Saturday, January 25, 2003 1:11 AM +0100 André Malo
<nd...@perlig.de> wrote:
> * nd@apache.org wrote:
>
>> backport from 2.1: allow RewriteEngine Off even if Options
>> -FollowSymlinks
>
> hmm, how is it? Is a fulfilled 2.0 backport vote sufficient to port
> it back to 1.3 or would I need another voting?
Is the change the same? Would the same patch apply to 2.0 as to 1.3?
If so, then I think you'd be safe. If it'd require more tweaking,
then I think you'd be best off asking for another vote (after posting
the 1.3-specific changes). -- justin