httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: NOTE: Intent to T&R 2.2.6 tomorrow
Date Tue, 12 Nov 2013 20:55:39 GMT
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:56:39 -0600
"William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:48:16 -0500
> Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> 
> > I intend to T&R 2.2.26 tomorrow... post now if that's
> > an issue or problem...
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, two additional patches should possibly be
> considered for protocol correctness.  The first you shepherded into
> trunk, so I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on backporting
> this, Jim...
> 
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1524192
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1524770
> (Note that the commit log message is missing patch attribution)
> 
> A backport is attached, as best as I've figured from the trunk-modulo-
> 2.2 code path.
> 
> The second is the 100-continue behavior, when proxy-interim-response
> is set to RFC.  As Yann noted in a very long and winding message
> thread, the core http filter is pushing a 100 continue interim
> status, and then mod_proxy_http is pushing back yet another interim
> status response.  The core status response must be suppressed on
> proxy-interim-response RFC requests.
> 
> It's not clear where that discussion thread has ended up, or whether
> there is a usable patch to enforce this behavior.  As you had the most
> to contribute to that thread, can you give us your thoughts on its
> current status, Jim?

Let's let the question of adopting either or both of these changes
expire at the end of the day.  If there is no strong support for
picking up either or both of these in 2.4.7, they can be pended for
some later release.

Committers - your thoughts?
Mime
View raw message