I think http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1527925 is also needed...
On Nov 12, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > 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> >
