Re: backport proposals

2017-04-27 Thread Daniel Ruggeri 
Which reminds me... How about that cool proxy protocol patch? Anyone want to 
give it a whirl? ;-)
-- 
Daniel Ruggeri


 Original Message 
From: Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>
Sent: April 27, 2017 9:55:39 AM CDT
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: backport proposals

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 <cove...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Stefan Eissing
> <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote:
>> Take this as an observation about proposals in general, nothing wrong with 
>> this one in particular:
>> 
>>  *) 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.patch
>>   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
>> 
>> So, how to check this? I tried the FULL hcheck patch. It does not work, ~50% 
>> of hunks fail.
>> 
>> Ok, revert. Then I just tried this:
>>svn merge -c 
>> 1784203,1784205,1784227,1784228,1784275,1785871,1786009,1789387 
>> ^/httpd/httpd/trunk .
> 
> Looks much easier to me.  Another option is what kotkov recently used
> 
> 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.

Re: backport proposals

2017-04-27 Thread Jacob Champion 

On 04/27/2017 07:15 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:

So, the proposal could have been written as:

*) mod_proxy_hcheck: Honor checks in Vhosts w/o hanging svn merge -c
1784203,1784205,1784227,1784228,1784275,1785871,1786009,1789387
^/httpd/httpd/trunk . +1: jim, ylavic

Wouldn't that be easier?


+1, and I plan to write similar proposals like this when I start 
backporting feature branches. They'll end up looking like


svn merge -r :HEAD ^/httpd/httpd/branches/

--Jacob

Re: backport proposals

2017-04-27 Thread Jim Jagielski 
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  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Stefan Eissing
>  wrote:
>> Take this as an observation about proposals in general, nothing wrong with 
>> this one in particular:
>> 
>>  *) 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.patch
>>   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
>> 
>> So, how to check this? I tried the FULL hcheck patch. It does not work, ~50% 
>> of hunks fail.
>> 
>> Ok, revert. Then I just tried this:
>>svn merge -c 
>> 1784203,1784205,1784227,1784228,1784275,1785871,1786009,1789387 
>> ^/httpd/httpd/trunk .
> 
> Looks much easier to me.  Another option is what kotkov recently used
> 
> 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.

Re: backport proposals

2017-04-27 Thread Yann Ylavic 
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Stefan Eissing
 wrote:
> Take this as an observation about proposals in general, nothing wrong with 
> this one in particular:
>
>   *) 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.patch
>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
>
> So, how to check this? I tried the FULL hcheck patch. It does not work, ~50% 
> of hunks fail.
>
> Ok, revert. Then I just tried this:
> svn merge -c 
> 1784203,1784205,1784227,1784228,1784275,1785871,1786009,1789387 
> ^/httpd/httpd/trunk .
>
> and all is well! So, the proposal could have been written as:
>
>   *) mod_proxy_hcheck: Honor checks in Vhosts w/o hanging
> svn merge -c 
> 1784203,1784205,1784227,1784228,1784275,1785871,1786009,1789387 
> ^/httpd/httpd/trunk .
>  +1: jim, ylavic
>
> Wouldn't that be easier? I mean, sometimes trunk and backport may differ a 
> lot. But most commonly, only CHANGES and message-tags need to be ignored. I 
> myself would prefer just to copy a one liner.

Agreed, I tried several merges too, that's why I added the patch I
tested in the proposal (httpd2.4-hcheck-after-r1779573.patch), which
corresponds to yours (as indicated in the trailer: "Merged
/httpd/httpd/trunk:r1784203,1784205,1784227-1784228,1784275,1785871,1786009,1789387").

Looks like it didn't help either :/

Re: backport proposals

2017-04-27 Thread Eric Covener 
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Stefan Eissing
 wrote:
> Take this as an observation about proposals in general, nothing wrong with 
> this one in particular:
>
>   *) 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.patch
>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
>
> So, how to check this? I tried the FULL hcheck patch. It does not work, ~50% 
> of hunks fail.
>
> Ok, revert. Then I just tried this:
> svn merge -c 
> 1784203,1784205,1784227,1784228,1784275,1785871,1786009,1789387 
> ^/httpd/httpd/trunk .

Looks much easier to me.  Another option is what kotkov recently used

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.