Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 391E9C151 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:40:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 81213 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jun 2013 19:40:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 81152 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jun 2013 19:40:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 81144 invoked by uid 99); 18 Jun 2013 19:40:08 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:40:08 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [188.40.99.202] (HELO eru.sfritsch.de) (188.40.99.202) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:40:03 +0000 Received: from [10.1.1.6] (helo=k.localnet) by eru.sfritsch.de with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Up1kj-00068Z-T3; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:39:41 +0200 From: Stefan Fritsch To: Jim Jagielski Subject: Re: looking for luv Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:39:41 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.9-1-amd64; KDE/4.8.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org References: <838D9CBC-4656-41FF-A239-5C005A0289F4@jaguNET.com> In-Reply-To: <838D9CBC-4656-41FF-A239-5C005A0289F4@jaguNET.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201306182139.41538.sf@sfritsch.de> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I will be removing this backport request, but I'd ask sf to > actually address his concerns by actually working on the code > instead of just blocking it for whatever reason. That's not what I intended. I did not vote -1. The comments were meant to indicate what would need to happen (possibly modulo some discussions) for me to vote +1. But I won't fix the issues myself, I have things with higher priority on my to do list than bringing the skiplist to 2.4 right now. I am not against the changes, though. I am just reluctant to bring new APIs to 2.4 if they have not seen much testing. Cheers, Stefan