I "just" added it to the backport proposal for 2.4... If there is sufficient support for adding in 2.2 then I guess there will be enough for 2.4. Go ahead and add to STATUS and we'll see...
On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:55 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:56:39 -0600 > "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? > > Let's let the question of adopting either or both of these changes > expire at the end of the day. If there is no strong support for > picking up either or both of these in 2.4.7, they can be pended for > some later release. > > Committers - your thoughts?<httpd-2.2-r1524192-r1524770-TE-CL.patch>
