Works for me... btw: for things like the below, I actually use git-svn, which, at least to me, provides a workflow which I find easier.
> On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:10 AM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> > wrote: > > >> Am 08.09.2015 um 03:56 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>: >> >> On Sep 7, 2015 1:14 PM, "Stefan Eissing" <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> >> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks, new branch to bring in protocols and mod_h2 is at >>> >>> >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.17-protocols-http2 >> >> I am fine with either approach. . not a critique, >> >> I think the simplest is to prove up all core httpd patches, and propose >> modules/http2 straight from trunk (or the rev you think is most appropriate, >> modulo some small backport patch). >> >> At least, that's what I have been looking at for the past 2 weeks, the patch >> list was less approachable :) > > As for reviewing the diffs, it's certainly make only sense for the things > outside modules/http2 for this initial backport. > > YMMV, but I myself prefer the branches, as it gives me superior tool support > for handling changes, especially when three(!) source trees are involved: > ongoing trunk, 2.4.x and the backport change. > > So, if I forgot something from trunk: >> cd httpd/2.4.17-my-backport-proposal >> svn merge -c <change-id> ^/httpd/httpd/trunk . >> #review and commit > > If something else has been backported, I update my proposal: >> cd httpd/2.4.17-my-backport-proposal >> svn merge ^/httpd/httpd/2.4.x . >> #review and commit > > If my backport is accepted: >> cd httpd/2.4.xl >> svn merge ^/httpd/httpd/2.4.17-my-backport-proposal . >> #review and commit > > Subversion nowadays is quite potent with branch merges. > > //Stefan > > <green/>bytes GmbH > Hafenweg 16, 48155 Münster, Germany > Phone: +49 251 2807760. Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782 > > >
