William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
-1 veto, please revert this commit.
Unless I missed something, these changes were not voted on in the
STATUS file. I think wrowe's endorsement was... badly worded.
wrowe's endorsement was fine, and one of three votes required to override
STATUS flow, so you are right - it's premature. We would need at least
a third committer agreeing to apply then test then flush out due to the
discrepancies between httpd 2.4 and 2.2 mod_ssl code bases.
But I'd really rather we didn't kick around patch files due to all of the
mismatches between trunk and 2.2.
/I think it would be a good idea to plan a release together with
openssl 1.0.0, at least //when openssl 1.0.0 comes out, mod_ssl
should be compilable./
/
Concerning the differences, I can see several categories:
- changes due to stricter rules in openssl, this concerns the
mentioned patches, in fact the 'const' and 'stack' stuff. This
doesn't change any functionality. Not a big deal that
this backport was forgotten in 2.2.12.
- "simple" corrections and functional additions in the trunk.
some may be worth to be backported.
- complex additions like sni, ocsp, locks, ... may be a
problem IF the underlying 0.9.8x and 1.0.0 code behave
differently, but so far I don't really see this, it is more likely
that some features in the trunk is not considered
sufficiently mature.
Thanks for reading
have fun.
Peter
/
