Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: backport proposals
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:55:39 -0400
References: <1E3F781A-3B59-4730-9B04-C076926E5711@greenbytes.de>
 <CALK=YjPdzM5POwZ63KQgQKFhpLnxdH30FpgoEA6gDYB67DL-bA@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <CALK=YjPdzM5POwZ63KQgQKFhpLnxdH30FpgoEA6gDYB67DL-bA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <16098B27-E5DA-499B-A75D-B1315D8EAF02@jaguNET.com>
archived-at: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:55:53 -0000

Yeah... sometimes it is easier to create a "combined" patchfile
which shows the collected changes, for ease of reviewing, but, as
you say, it can get out of sync as other patches are backported,
esp if the proposed backport is in STATUS for a semi-extended
period of time.

> On Apr 27, 2017, at 10:47 AM, Eric Covener <covener@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Stefan Eissing
> <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de> wrote:
>> Take this as an observation about proposals in general, nothing wrong =
with this one in particular:
>>=20
>>  *) mod_proxy_hcheck: Honor checks in Vhosts w/o hanging
>>     trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1784203
>>                  http://svn.apache.org/r1784205
>>                  http://svn.apache.org/r1784227
>>                  http://svn.apache.org/r1784228
>>                  http://svn.apache.org/r1784275
>>                  http://svn.apache.org/r1785871
>>                  http://svn.apache.org/r1786009
>>                  http://svn.apache.org/r1789387
>>     2.4.x patch: trunk works *after r1779573 above* (modulo CHANGES)
>>              ie: =
http://home.apache.org/~ylavic/patches/httpd2.4-hcheck-after-r1779573.patc=
h
>>           FULL hcheck patch: =
http://home.apache.org/~jim/patches/httpd2.4-hcheck.patch
>>                              http://svn.apache.org/r1789387
>>           (includes all hcheck related patches, including =
showstopper)
>>     +1: jim, ylavic
>>=20
>> So, how to check this? I tried the FULL hcheck patch. It does not =
work, ~50% of hunks fail.
>>=20
>> Ok, revert. Then I just tried this:
>>        svn merge -c =
1784203,1784205,1784227,1784228,1784275,1785871,1786009,1789387 =
^/httpd/httpd/trunk .
>=20
> Looks much easier to me.  Another option is what kotkov recently used
>=20
> Not 100% clear to me in this case that the collected patch was really
> just meant to be the same revs + merge conflicts due to the wording.