Makes sense.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > 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... >
