Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4E6011B1.5090007@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 18:13:53 -0500
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Another regression regarding byteranges
References: 
 <E563FB5AB3F02844AC749BA39E494AB4053BC39B@VF-MBX11.internal.vodafone.com>
 <145ED2CE-2F93-44CF-A16B-278B17BD5C34@jaguNET.com>
 <29BEDABA-6D7C-4270-AC9B-D879EE027789@webweaving.org>
In-Reply-To: <29BEDABA-6D7C-4270-AC9B-D879EE027789@webweaving.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 9/1/2011 7:51 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> 
> On 1 Sep 2011, at 13:33, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Sep 1, 2011, at 6:31 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>>> I already fixed that in trunk.
>>> I think this regression justifies another release for 2.2.x. But IMHO we should wait at least until
>>> mid next week to see if other regressions come thru and hit them all with a 2.2.21.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
> 
> Ok - so this makes it sound we really should get the advisory out. Shall I update it with some caveats and stay tuned - but still make it FINAL ?
> 
> Or should we make this an update - and not declare final victory ?

+1

An /update/ with patch pointers (the patches themselves being moving
targets as we find these bugs) and to point out the feedback mechanism
(request before and after patch request and response headers as
examples and especially what patch level as documented in the patch)
should do just fine as an update, and we should presume there are
more bugs hiding in this code.

Now that 2.2.20 was published, I see little reason to track this as
a wiki page; bugzilla is probably sufficient now.