You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com> on 2008/08/07 04:53:10 UTC
Re: svn commit: r683465 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:30:49 -0000
tdonovan@apache.org wrote:
> remove proposal accidentally added twice
I was about to ask whether you planned to vote on the other
instance of it, when I saw:
> - * mod_rewrite: After r649840, mod_proxy_http will no longer append
> a query string
> - from r->args if "no-canon" is used. PR: 45247
> -
> - Trunk version of patch:
> - http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=670061&view=rev
> - http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=670198&view=rev
> - Backport version for 2.2.x of patch:
> - Trunk version of patch(es) works
> - +1: tdonovan
That's actually different: only the first patch was already proposed.
Maybe you'd like to clarify?
--
Nick Kew
Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/
Re: svn commit: r683465 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:09:56 -0400
Tom Donovan <do...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> Nick Kew wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:30:49 -0000
> > tdonovan@apache.org wrote:
> >
> >> remove proposal accidentally added twice
> >
> > I was about to ask whether you planned to vote on the other
> > instance of it, when I saw:
>
> Looking at the "backport to 2.2" votes in STATUS, they all seem to be
> from experienced httpd maintainers; so I was unsure if I should vote
> myself or wait for three +1's from others before proceeding.
Your +1 in STATUS is worth the same as anyone else's. That's a
threshold you passed when you became a committer. Another thing
you can do now when you have time for it is to review proposals
in STATUS and vote and/or comment on them.
> > That's actually different: only the first patch was already
> > proposed. Maybe you'd like to clarify?
>
> r670061 was my first attempt to fix it.
>
> Ruediger pointed out that this change could break forward proxies in
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.devel/34670
> so I corrected the fix in r670198.
Then it would be a good idea to include that in the backport proposal,
typically by amending the existing one (add a note something like
"please add r670198").
--
Nick Kew
Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/
Re: svn commit: r683465 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Posted by Tom Donovan <do...@bellatlantic.net>.
Nick Kew wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:30:49 -0000
> tdonovan@apache.org wrote:
>
>> remove proposal accidentally added twice
>
> I was about to ask whether you planned to vote on the other
> instance of it, when I saw:
Looking at the "backport to 2.2" votes in STATUS, they all seem to be from experienced httpd
maintainers; so I was unsure if I should vote myself or wait for three +1's from others before
proceeding.
>> - Trunk version of patch:
>> - http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=670061&view=rev
>> - http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=670198&view=rev
>
> That's actually different: only the first patch was already proposed.
> Maybe you'd like to clarify?
r670061 was my first attempt to fix it.
Ruediger pointed out that this change could break forward proxies in
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.devel/34670
so I corrected the fix in r670198.
The (original) proposed patch
http://people.apache.org/~tdonovan/diffs/mod_rewrite_proxy_esc_2.2.x.diff
combines both the r670061 and r670198 changes
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c?r1=664333&r2=670198
-tom-