Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Received-SPF: error (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <51B1E8A7.5050902@christopherschultz.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:05:27 -0400
From: Christopher Schultz <chris@christopherschultz.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tomcat Developers List <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Where to put proposals for tcnative?
References: <51B0B735.5080803@christopherschultz.net>
 <51B0C7B0.1080003@kippdata.de> <51B0CD66.6080401@christopherschultz.net>
 <51B0F713.20902@kippdata.de> <51B0F9D5.3020307@kippdata.de>
In-Reply-To: <51B0F9D5.3020307@kippdata.de>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="----enig2PKEJRKIQWPOFXPRBTFBP"

------enig2PKEJRKIQWPOFXPRBTFBP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Rainer,

On 6/6/13 5:06 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 06.06.2013 22:54, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> On 06.06.2013 19:56, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>>> Rainer,
>>>
>>> On 6/6/13 1:32 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>>> On 06.06.2013 18:22, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>>
>>>> Proposals mostly for the C files probably make sense in a STATUS fil=
e
>>>> here if they are backports from native trunk.
>>>
>>> I was going to make a C-language proposal.
>>>
>>> I can't seem to get "configure" to work in trunk because some macros
>>> aren't working properly (see below), so I've been working in the 1.1.=
x
>>> branch.
>>
>> See below below :)
>>
>>> PS Here's what I get when trying to build tcnative-trunk:
>>
>> ... snip ...
>>
>> configure.in was broken as was the new java detection macro. Hopefully=

>> fixed in the last two commits. "svn up" and there you go.
>=20
> I should also warn you: native trunk is not in good shape. Many C files=

> are behind the 1.1 ones. trunk was created for some new features and
> increased APR minimum version
>=20
>=20
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/tomcat-dev/200810.mbox/%3C48E6=
302B.7060704@kippdata.de%3E
>=20
> but later lots of changes were applied directly to 1.1 and trunk was
> forgotten. See the January 2013 discussion thread on tcnative. The clea=
n
> up for the native c files didn't happen.

In this particular case, it seems like my changes should be relatively
compatible between the two. Should I patch trunk and back-port, patch
1.1 and forward-port, or patch 1.1 and ignore trunk (thus making the
problem worse). I suspect trunk -> 1.1 since it looks straightforward.

(Commit after review, of course)

Thanks,
-chris


------enig2PKEJRKIQWPOFXPRBTFBP
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=OKXU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

------enig2PKEJRKIQWPOFXPRBTFBP--