Re: svn commit: r798359 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x: modules/ssl/ssl_engine_init.c modules/ssl/ssl_engine_kernel.c modules/ssl/ssl_engine_vars.c modules/ssl/ssl_util_ssl.c support/ab.c

[Nick Kew]

On 28 Jul 2009, at 21:29, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

Paul Querna wrote:

-1 veto, please revert this commit.

Unless I missed something, these changes were not voted on in the
STATUS file.  I think wrowe's endorsement was... badly worded.

wrowe's endorsement was fine, and one of three votes required to override STATUS flow, so you are right - it's premature. We would need at least a third committer agreeing to apply then test then flush out due to the

discrepancies between httpd 2.4 and 2.2 mod_ssl code bases.

What do you mean by "override STATUS flow"?  STATUS serves as a
focal point for eyes, and a backport proposal that hasn't appeared in
STATUS has denied folks the proper forum for technical review and
platform for a veto!

But I'd really rather we didn't kick around patch files due to all of the

mismatches between trunk and 2.2.

A patch file is something you apply locally, as and when you get
around to reviewing the backport proposal in STATUS.
How is that a problem?

--
Nick Kew