On 07/21/2010 05:06 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:01 AM, wrote: >> Author: niq >> Date: Wed Jul 21 00:31:07 2010 >> New Revision: 966060 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=966060&view=rev >> Log: >> Propose backport. >> This one-line patch fixes a bug introduced since 2.2.15, >> so it would be a particularly good idea to backport before $next-release. >> >> Modified: >> httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS >> >> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS?rev=966060&r1=966059&r2=966060&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS (original) >> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS Wed Jul 21 00:31:07 2010 >> @@ -242,6 +242,10 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: >> 2.2 patch: should apply cleanly >> +1: gstein >> >> + * mod_headers: fix omission in edit-multiple patch, noted by rpluem >> + Patch: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=966059 >> + +1: niq > > Doesn't this go with the following current STATUS item? > > *) mod_headers: support global replace in Header Edit > PR 46594 (not 47066 as incorrectly recorded in change log) > trunk: http://svn.eu.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=894036 > 2.2.x: http://people.apache.org/~niq/patches/46594.patch > +1: niq > > (i.e., not in 2.2.16-dev yet) > > If this is correct, they should be committed together (merge the votes). > Otherwise, sorry for the confusion.
Correct. IMHO they could be merged into one proposal. Regards Rüdiger
