On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:44:08 +0200 Graham Leggett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12 Nov 2013, at 11:41 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr." > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Trying to apply > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/log-message-tags/next-number?r1=1527925&r2=1527924&pathrev=1527925 > > ... there is no next-number tracking. > > > > How are we tracking numbers on 2.4 vs. trunk, and avoiding some > > discordance between the next 2.6 and 2.4 error numbers? Using > > trunk number allocations on any-branch? > > > > If we create a 2.4 branch-specific error for some cause, do we > > simply tick the trunk counter? > > I think this is the most pragmatic approach, the numbers only need to > be unique, and keeping the counter in one place makes sure we always > stay that way. Follow-up question; is reuse recommended? In this small bit of trunk (comments removed for simplicity); - else if (!lenp) { + else if (f->r->proxyreq == PROXYREQ_RESPONSE) { ap_log_rerror( - APLOG_MARK, APLOG_INFO, 0, f->r, APLOGNO(01585) "Unknown Transfer-Encoding: %s", tenc); - return APR_ENOTIMPL; + APLOG_MARK, APLOG_INFO, 0, f->r, APLOGNO(01586) "Unknown Transfer-Encoding: %s; using read-until-close", tenc); + tenc = NULL; } else { ap_log_rerror( - APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, 0, f->r, APLOGNO(01586) "Unknown Transfer-Encoding: %s; using Content-Length", tenc); - tenc = NULL; + APLOG_MARK, APLOG_INFO, 0, f->r, APLOGNO(01585) "Unknown Transfer-Encoding: %s", tenc); + return APR_EGENERAL; Indeed the second case becomes effectively the initial case, a T-E/C-L combination we throw away and refuse to handle. Although this is very subtly different - originally we gave up without a C-L, now we cough without or without a C-L if this is not a proxyreq response body. But the revised first case, 1586 'Reading to end', is indeed quite different than the original second case, 1586 'Using C-L'. Should this have been assigned a fresh number? Otherwise, we end up with divergent meanings, and the user who stumbles across 1586 will come up with two very different cases searching the web for their error. So should the second have been assigned a new number? Or both of cases assigned new numbers? Or is reuse acceptable?
