You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org> on 2003/03/01 01:42:51 UTC
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server connection.c
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>>
>> So, everybody agrees that it should be:
>>
>> - apr_status_t rc;
>> + int rc;
>>
>> correct?
>
>
> yes!
Thanks you Jeff. I've committed the fix.
Should I update Changes for this fix as well?
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server connection.c
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Jeff Trawick wrote:
> if it changes code from prior release and it is user visible, log it;
> otherwise, probably not if you ask me unless it is something really big
> like making mod_rewrite easier to read :)
hehehe ;-) Actually a lot of things in mod_rewrite can be simplified and
implemented more efficient and I plan to do that sometimes (perhaps in a
step by step procedure). The current changes are intended to be
backportable bugfixes. But when they're done ...
nd
--
die (eval q-qq:Just Another Perl Hacker
:-)
# André Malo, <http://pub.perlig.de/> #
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server connection.c
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Stas Bekman wrote:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> > Stas Bekman wrote:
> >
> >> Should I update Changes for this fix as well?
> >
>
> I was asking whether I should have also logged this last change:
>
> AP_CORE_DECLARE(void) ap_process_connection(conn_rec *c, void *csd)
> {
> - apr_status_t rc;
> + int rc;
>
> My common sense says no, but one can't be too sure...
oh, right you are... don't log something like that
if it changes code from prior release and it is user visible, log it;
otherwise, probably not if you ask me unless it is something really big
like making mod_rewrite easier to read :)
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server connection.c
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>> Should I update Changes for this fix as well?
>
>
> personally I would have put something like this in changes:
>
> *) Fix a segfault when a pre_connection hook fails the connection.
> [name]
That has been added already.
I was asking whether I should have also logged this last change:
AP_CORE_DECLARE(void) ap_process_connection(conn_rec *c, void *csd)
{
- apr_status_t rc;
+ int rc;
My common sense says no, but one can't be too sure...
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server connection.c
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Stas Bekman wrote:
> Should I update Changes for this fix as well?
personally I would have put something like this in changes:
*) Fix a segfault when a pre_connection hook fails the connection.
[name]