On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:09 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > Note in STATUS I've requested that you split the approved patch from > security@ that seemed to be lost in long and winding patch versioning from > the spaces accepted. A patch should correct one thing, not several, it > makes these too difficult to review when folks have a small window of free > time. Your proposed rolled-up patch didn't correspond to trunk, and the > 'parsing' flag seems unnecessary. Two error messages would have been easier > on reviewers anyways. > > Hopefully all constructive criticism easily agreed to?
No pb, that's how things go ahead! I can certainly split the patch (i.e. the two first hunks only address the 2.4.14's "defect") and commit what's already accepted from patch v5 (the three remaining hunks). The latter however includes the 'parsing' flag which is meant precisely to address the different semantic between trunk and 2.4.x (so far): in 2.4.x the parsing errors are handled by bail_out_on_error() whereas in trunk the caller decides (eg. a handler can return a HTTP status and hence, possibly, an ErrorDocument...). Without the 'parsing' flag, we'd also have to use two separate log messages (with a new AH for 2.4.x only), so I think it also helps commonality between the two codes (that could be addressed by splitting the same way in trunk though...). BTW, I do that now.
