Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of trawick@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKUrXK5ogJSatLat8e60YifB7o2jbuRO5QwE=dTeL1gi0M5xUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKUrXK7r_uaHeqSe4C78Qc694sCBgesabHDvmUXS2s97gpEkvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E6906D0.8010004@rowe-clan.net>
	<CAKUrXK5ogJSatLat8e60YifB7o2jbuRO5QwE=dTeL1gi0M5xUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 15:08:09 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAKUrXK6xW34Db7Kj7LCX3g-LAB5b3asZAywC38kD46NzoiydDA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] byterange patches for 2.2.19 and 2.2.20
From: Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>=
 wrote:
>> On 9/8/2011 11:44 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>>>> Here's what I have at present:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~trawick/2.2.20-byterange-fixes.txt
>>>>
>>>> (compiled-in max ranges, uses same AP_ symbol as 2.2.21 even though
>>>> the compiled-in version isn't the same type of "DEFAULT")
>>>>
>>>
>>> See also http://people.apache.org/~trawick/2.2.19-byterange-fixes.txt f=
or 2.2.19
>>
>> Lovely! =A0I think this file is far more useful, since anyone who alread=
y
>> adopted .20 should be in a good position to adopt .21, while someone
>> sitting back on .15 (or .9, gasp) might have a much bigger headache.
>>
>>> I've tested this latter patch with current framework and a separate
>>> test for numranges>200 with 2.2.14, 2.2.15, and 2.2.19. =A0(2.2.14 need=
s
>>> r916627, or at least the subset of it for byterange_filter.c, before
>>> applying the patch.)
>>
>> On the 2.0 side, nothings changed since 2.0.55 that should break the pat=
ch.
>
> BTW, do any of us have an updated 2.0 patch to reflect the important
> changes since last weekend? =A0If not, I'll need to work on thatin the
> short term.
>
>> On the 2.2 side, we might want to publish an apply_to_2.2.14 and 2.2.19,
>> just given that 2.2.9+ (which the .14 applies to) has only now reached 3
>> years old. =A0I see no real value in working out a <2.2.8 patch /shrug
>
> works for me
>
> I'll get a 2.2.14-no-caveats patch together (i.e., no prepatch of
> r916627 required).

http://people.apache.org/~trawick/2.2.14-byterange-fixes.txt