The only thing I worry about is that the below patches aren't even in 2.4 yet, although maybe they should be in the release-after-next.
Oh yeah... I recall you had an issue with me building because of potential issues with using a later, but still 100% valid autoconf/libtool setup. I am not going to downgrade just to build 2.2 so if that is *really* a concern, backed-up by the PMC, then someone else will need to RM. On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:56 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:48:16 -0500 > Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> I intend to T&R 2.2.26 tomorrow... post now if that's >> an issue or problem... > > As I mentioned earlier, two additional patches should possibly be > considered for protocol correctness. The first you shepherded into > trunk, so I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on backporting > this, Jim... > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1524192 > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1524770 > (Note that the commit log message is missing patch attribution) > > A backport is attached, as best as I've figured from the trunk-modulo- > 2.2 code path. > > The second is the 100-continue behavior, when proxy-interim-response is > set to RFC. As Yann noted in a very long and winding message thread, > the core http filter is pushing a 100 continue interim status, and then > mod_proxy_http is pushing back yet another interim status response. The > core status response must be suppressed on proxy-interim-response RFC > requests. > > It's not clear where that discussion thread has ended up, or whether > there is a usable patch to enforce this behavior. As you had the most > to contribute to that thread, can you give us your thoughts on its > current status, Jim? > > And thanks for offering to RM - please remember not to leapfrog the > versions of autoconf/libtool, lest we potentially break configure > behavior on the more obscure platforms, and trigger incompatibilities > in configure.in which only occur on newer versions of autoconf. > > Libtool 1.5.26 and autoconf 2.67 were used for 2.2.25 release; any later > 1.5 libtool or 2.6x series autoconf aught to work but you would want to > pre- buildconf and review any newer versions before tagging. > > I'm happy to RM with that same toolchain as I offered in the first place, > if that environment poses a headache for you. Only the two questions > above seemed relevant to me before moving on with this tag. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > > > > > > <httpd-2.2-r1524192-r1524770-TE-CL.patch>
