I chose not to fold it in... the config stuff was low risk; the below was not great risk, but higher than "acceptable" for a quick T&R.
> On Jan 22, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:25 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Author: minfrin >> Date: Thu Jan 22 17:25:13 2015 >> New Revision: 1653955 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1653955 >> Log: >> Vote and promote. >> >> Modified: >> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS >> >> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS?rev=1653955&r1=1653954&r2=1653955&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original) >> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS Thu Jan 22 17:25:13 2015 >> @@ -118,6 +118,13 @@ PATCHES ACCEPTED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: >> 2.4.x patch: trunks works >> +1: rjung, ylavic, wrowe >> >> + * mod_ssl: Fix renegotiation failures redirected to an ErrorDocument. >> + (segfault flaw) PR 57334. >> + trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1644498 >> + 2.4.x patch: trunk works (module CHANGES) >> + +1: ylavic, wrowe, minfrin >> + >> + > > It seems that this (last minute) one has not hit 2.4.12...
