httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
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 16:51:23 GMT

> On Dec 8, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> My only suggestion is that instead of willy-nilly suggesting
>> patches that will be included in a release, that we actually take
>> time to think of the correct patch, to implement it and TEST against
>> it and only THEN have it backported.
>> 
>> Please.
> 
> Suggestions have to start somewhere, I did not mean to rush on this,
> just expecting feedbacks (including ones like yours, which is indeed
> very sensible :)
> 
> My point was that if we were backport r1717816 in 2.4.18 (for OPTIONS
> to work back), we needed more changes for RFC-compliance wrt TLS/1.x
> Upgrades, the one w/o the other is not suitable.
> 
> So I think we all agree on the need to think/test more about this ;)

Oh, agreed 100%.

Mime
View raw message