On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually, I did find two of them, but when I had replied, I hadn't gone > digging, and wanted to make it easy for someone, anyone to also vote for > these patches without returning to STATUS.
sorry for my lame commit message; no complaint/insult/whatever intended ;) > Since 1.3 branch is closed, shouldn't the STATUS file also be closed? Just > don't want anyone to see 'last updated' on that tree and assume it was still > alive for any purpose whatsoever. Just my 2c I started to fret about that but decided not to worry about modifying this bit of release metadata given the context -- discussion of some specific support for 1.3 and recent updates to the 1.3 security document stating that a patch would be available. > > > > On 2/1/2012 3:40 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> Author: trawick >> Date: Wed Feb 1 21:40:58 2012 >> New Revision: 1239336 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1239336&view=rev >> Log: >> gee, some people don't even have a checkout of 1.3.x >> >> Modified: >> httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/STATUS >> >> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/STATUS >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/STATUS?rev=1239336&r1=1239335&r2=1239336&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/STATUS (original) >> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/STATUS Wed Feb 1 21:40:58 2012 >> @@ -65,11 +65,11 @@ POST-RETIREMENT SECURITY PATCHES: >> >> *) CVE-2011-3368/CVE-2011-4317 >> http://people.apache.org/~trawick/1.3-CVE-2011-4317-r1235443.patch >> - +1: trawick >> + +1: trawick, wrowe >> >> *) CVE-2012-0053 >> http://people.apache.org/~trawick/1.3-CVE-2012-0053-r1234837.patch >> - +1: trawick >> + +1: trawick, wrowe >> trawick: I'll update the security doc once I get an idea of whether >> or not a patch will be made available. >> >> >> >> > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien...
