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: svn commit: r1777453 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Date Sat, 07 Jan 2017 04:03:40 GMT
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:39 PM,  <ylavic@apache.org> wrote:
>> Author: ylavic
>> Date: Thu Jan  5 11:39:58 2017
>> New Revision: 1777453
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1777453&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Promote r1753592 as showstopper, since it also fixes build with MSVC.
>> (Not worth fixing the build if we can backport this change, two fixes for the price
of one :)
>>
>> Modified:
>>     httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
>>
>> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS?rev=1777453&r1=1777452&r2=1777453&view=diff
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS (original)
>> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS Thu Jan  5 11:39:58 2017
>> @@ -102,6 +102,16 @@ RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS:
>>  PATCHES ACCEPTED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
>>    [ start all new proposals below, under PATCHES PROPOSED. ]
>>
>> +  *) mod_proxy: Correctly consider error response codes by the backend when
>> +     processing failonstatus. PR 59869
>> +      Trunk version of patch:
>> +         http://svn.apache.org/r1753592
>> +      Backport version for 2.4.x of patch:
>> +         http://svn.apache.org/r1756562
>> +      Backport version for 2.2.x of patch:
>> +         http://home.apache.org/~ylavic/patches/httpd-2.2.x-r1753592.patch
>> +      +1: ylavic
>
> Ouch, really meant SHOWSTOPPER here, and moved it to the wrong section.
> Re-moved in r1777740, c89 issue which would be unfortunate to fix
> without addressing PR 59869 at the same time...

Thought that's what you might have meant, but the showstopper is the smallest
patch that solves the gating issue. (I know, three non-reviewers of the recent
security refactoring are laughing their a$$e$ off at such a comment from me :)

Seems it has the votes, so we can start moving forwards, too bad so many
compiler solutions are so happy to accept c++ syntax for c sources without
a whimper.

Mime
View raw message