André Malo wrote:
* Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:I'm comfortable backporting all of the 2.0.x patches marked ACCEPTED apart from the following two: *) mod_actions: Regression from 1.3: the file referred to must exist. Solve this by introducing the "virtual" modifier to the Action directive. PR 28553. modules/mappers/mod_actions.c: r1.32, r1.34 jerenkrantz: Icky side-effect of the *t == '0' check. +1: nd, jerenkrantz, wrowe, jim -0: by rbb (inconsistent to 1.3, discussion on dev@) nd: I'm going to reverse the default jerenkrantz, striker: I'm confused as to the status of this backport. I have to agree with the last point. Is this accepted, or is it not, and what are the subversion revision numbers? or where is a patch I can apply?as 2.2 is out yet and I didn't make it so far, I'd say, drop this one, because changing behaviour would now confuse people.
What is the behavior, is 2.2 now consistent to 1.3? If so I strongly suggest we 'fix' 2.0 to be consistent with both. If it remains 'broken' in 2.2, then let's leave the behavior alone on both 2.0 and 2.2 for one more release cycle.
