On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 3:30 PM Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge via
> svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While
> these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on the backport
> process, both for
On 29 May 2020, at 21:30, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge via
> svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While
> these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on the backport
> process, both for reviewing and
Works for me.
> On May 29, 2020, at 3:30 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge via
> svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While
> these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on the backport
> process,
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 8:14 AM Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> How about we replace all the "proxy-send{cl,chunks,chunked}" logic in
> mod_proxy_http (trunk only) with a single (inverse)
> "proxy-no-chunked"?
>
> I think almost all backends nowadays support "chunked"
> transfer-encoding, so the default
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:30 PM Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge via
> svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While
> these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on the backport
> process, both for
