On 09/03/2010 02:13 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 03 Sep 2010, at 12:53 AM, Nick Kew wrote: > >> I disagree about 'broken': a cache isn't *required* to cache ranges. > > I definitely agree that a cache isn't required to cache ranges, but > right now mod_cache actively forbids the caching of ranges by an > implementation, and that's the behaviour that's currently broken. > >> As for third-party backends, this change is at serious risk of breaking >> anything that has (perfectly reasonably) ignored range responses. >> Fine for trunk, but not for a stable branch.
Good catch Nick. > > Good point, in that case I withdraw the backport, this makes sense. But in this case we should backport https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=933919 to fix PR49113, which would have been fixed by other means by Grahams backport proposal. Regards Rüdiger
