httpd-cvs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From fua...@apache.org
Subject svn commit: r609732 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
Date Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:46:39 GMT
Author: fuankg
Date: Mon Jan  7 10:46:37 2008
New Revision: 609732

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=609732&view=rev
Log:
removed tabs.

Modified:
    httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS

Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS?rev=609732&r1=609731&r2=609732&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS Mon Jan  7 10:46:37 2008
@@ -250,14 +250,14 @@
        +1: bnicholes, jim, wrowe
        0: nd, jerenkrantz
           nd: can the local_addr->port ever be 0?
-	  bnicholes response: I couldn't tell you for sure if local_addr->port
-	    could be 0.  But it makes sense that if it were then Apache 
-	    wouldn't be listening on any port so it wouldn't matter anyway.
+          bnicholes response: I couldn't tell you for sure if local_addr->port
+            could be 0.  But it makes sense that if it were then Apache 
+            wouldn't be listening on any port so it wouldn't matter anyway.
           nd replies: But if it can't be 0 the alternatives thereafter make no
             sense anymore, right?
-	  jim proposes: UseCanonicalName Client directive
-	    which implements this, keeping UseCanonicalName Off
- 	    "as is".
+          jim proposes: UseCanonicalName Client directive
+            which implements this, keeping UseCanonicalName Off
+            "as is".
 
     *) ThreadStackSize for Win32 and threaded MPMs
        trawick will eventually put together a patch for httpd 2.0.next
@@ -406,10 +406,10 @@
         Message-ID: <065701c14526$495203b0$96c0b0d0@roweclan.net>
         [Deleted comments regarding the ap_run_handler phase, as irrelevant
             as BillS points out that "common case will be caught in
-  	    default_handler already (with the r->finfo.filetype == 0 check)"
+            default_handler already (with the r->finfo.filetype == 0 check)"
             and the issue is detecting this -before- we try to run the req.]
 
-	gregames says: can this happen somehow without a broken module
+        gregames says: can this happen somehow without a broken module
             being involved?  If not, why waste cycles trying to defend against
             potential broken modules?  It seems futile.
         wrowe counters: no, it shouldn't happen unless the module is broken.



Mime
View raw message