httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Eissing <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de>
Subject Re: Upgrade when !ap_request_has_body(r) only for 2.4.18? (was: svn commit: r1718595 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS)
Date Tue, 08 Dec 2015 15:21:31 GMT

> Am 08.12.2015 um 16:18 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de> wrote:
> +1 for deferring any upgrade changes that do not fix real issues - like the one proposed
for backport by Bill - to 2.4.19
> 
> Agreed, as spelled out in my top-post, simplest path to 2.4.18, and these
> interesting discussions over the past day point to no single simple path.
> 
> Note that the pre-patch behavior caused tls to overwrite h2c, now the protocol
> API will overwrite tls upgrade advertisements on the first trip through.
> 
> Does it make sense to @bug the new Protocol API's stating that these
> remain experimental and still subject to change, and refer prospective 
> developer/consumers to dev@httpd?  It seems something will change
> in a later 2.4 release, and its simply a matter of what is the appropriate
> straight path that can satisfy all of the prospective upgrade consumers.

+1


Mime
View raw message