On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Ruediger Pluem <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 08/27/2015 08:57 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Author: jkaluza > > Date: Thu Aug 27 06:57:08 2015 > > New Revision: 1698084 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1698084 > > Log: > > Vote > > > > Modified: > > httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS > > > > Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS > > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS?rev=1698084&r1=1698083&r2=1698084&view=diff > > > ============================================================================== > > --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS (original) > > +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS Thu Aug 27 06:57:08 2015 > > @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: > > None, only 2.2.x specific > > Backport version for 2.2.x of patch: > > http://people.apache.org/~rpluem/patches/pr58267.diff > > - +1: rpluem, > > + +1: rpluem, jkaluza > > I know that I saw positive feedback or better +1's on the dev list and > that this counts as well, but to ease > documentation and to be sure that we all talked about the same I would > like to see these +1's going in STATUS if they > are still valid. > I have Yann and Jim on my mind :-). > No need, provided we acknowledge 'Reviewed by:' in the commit message for the backport.
