Return-Path: <dev-return-88884-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@httpd.apache.org>
X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io
Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io
Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183])
	by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FE17200C23
	for <archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:03:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix)
	id 4E882160B72; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:03:37 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id BDA1D160B49
	for <archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:03:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: (qmail 384 invoked by uid 500); 22 Feb 2017 08:03:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
list-help: <mailto:dev-help@httpd.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@httpd.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.httpd.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org
Received: (qmail 373 invoked by uid 99); 22 Feb 2017 08:03:35 -0000
Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:03:35 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 65593C05B0
	for <dev@httpd.apache.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:03:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31
	tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
	RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.999, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001]
	autolearn=disabled
Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new);
	dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=greenbytes.de header.b=OPleT2e0;
	dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=greenbytes.de header.b=FTT/ca+0
Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8])
	by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id zy6GvYGdjd6S for <dev@httpd.apache.org>;
	Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:03:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (mail.greenbytes.de [5.10.171.186])
	by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 1156A5F1B8
	for <dev@httpd.apache.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:03:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix, from userid 117)
	id 3062E15A093F; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:39:15 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=greenbytes.de; s=mail;
	t=1487749155; bh=AVuQrO23N5EOS91UPsKAPuHwZMPuJHY7yKIUQq4vV6w=;
	h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=OPleT2e0pVJG2m1Bmn7yYo0JQxvU5TB9Kbut6B0kYXMtpTUkybLU2OI+z5vCBHgbD
	 HUX7c7QUGFijiZ6b7S8qqdaJQa+0SkM+RbQsiXWbgh05Nkc2UEySwkVgNtd70n8Usg
	 lc8VZLmUS4OwVBDRhC62z51jQzTioL+AW8fekEek=
Received: from [192.168.1.33] (unknown [192.168.1.1])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4615E15A04AC
	for <dev@httpd.apache.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:39:11 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=greenbytes.de; s=mail;
	t=1487749151; bh=AVuQrO23N5EOS91UPsKAPuHwZMPuJHY7yKIUQq4vV6w=;
	h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=FTT/ca+0wkAHXC8d16f9VfmNAF6fkki0WXf/wta+JHkbSX0Tzxgzjl2au6coKmD3M
	 nlLQEuw61j9tGWNKrNIEnZzjGA3xI9e2dHIGAg4gS9nRNmBnLJu5mz/ase2SiXawQO
	 qd8XgjpQ23SHEGyFI8JeYqV0MFol6CTbtZqilBDQ=
From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [RFC] <IfDirective>?
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:03:27 +0100
References: <20170221215809.GA13579@redhat.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <20170221215809.GA13579@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <3314F21E-FE8A-4024-AE31-6CAE4FE221D9@greenbytes.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
archived-at: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:03:37 -0000

Neat! +1

> Am 21.02.2017 um 22:58 schrieb Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com>:
>=20
> For cases like HttpProtocolOptions where a new directive is introduced=20=

> to multiple active branches simultaneously, it gets awkward to use=20
> <IfVersion> to write conf files which use the new directive but are=20
> compatible across multiple versions.
>=20
> Triggered by a conversation with a user, but also e.g. see current =
test=20
> suite t/conf/extra.conf.in which breaks for 2.4 releases older than=20
> 2.4.25 with:
>=20
>  <IfVersion >=3D 2.2.32>
>    <VirtualHost _default_:http_strict>
>      DocumentRoot @SERVERROOT@/htdocs/
>      HttpProtocolOptions Strict Require1.0 RegisteredMethods
>=20
> Any reason <IfDirective> is a bad idea, so we can do that more cleanly=20=

> (... in a couple of decades time)?
>=20
> Regards, Joe
> <ap_ifdirective.diff>

Stefan Eissing

<green/>bytes GmbH
Hafenstrasse 16
48155 M=C3=BCnster
www.greenbytes.de