On 9/8/2011 11:44 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Jeff Trawick <[email protected]> wrote: >> Here's what I have at present: >> http://people.apache.org/~trawick/2.2.20-byterange-fixes.txt >> >> (compiled-in max ranges, uses same AP_ symbol as 2.2.21 even though >> the compiled-in version isn't the same type of "DEFAULT") >> > > See also http://people.apache.org/~trawick/2.2.19-byterange-fixes.txt for > 2.2.19
Lovely! I think this file is far more useful, since anyone who already adopted .20 should be in a good position to adopt .21, while someone sitting back on .15 (or .9, gasp) might have a much bigger headache. > I've tested this latter patch with current framework and a separate > test for numranges>200 with 2.2.14, 2.2.15, and 2.2.19. (2.2.14 needs > r916627, or at least the subset of it for byterange_filter.c, before > applying the patch.) On the 2.0 side, nothings changed since 2.0.55 that should break the patch. On the 2.2 side, we might want to publish an apply_to_2.2.14 and 2.2.19, just given that 2.2.9+ (which the .14 applies to) has only now reached 3 years old. I see no real value in working out a <2.2.8 patch /shrug
