On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Stefan Eissing <[email protected]> wrote: > Take this as an observation about proposals in general, nothing wrong with > this one in particular: > > *) mod_proxy_hcheck: Honor checks in Vhosts w/o hanging > trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1784203 > http://svn.apache.org/r1784205 > http://svn.apache.org/r1784227 > http://svn.apache.org/r1784228 > http://svn.apache.org/r1784275 > http://svn.apache.org/r1785871 > http://svn.apache.org/r1786009 > http://svn.apache.org/r1789387 > 2.4.x patch: trunk works *after r1779573 above* (modulo CHANGES) > ie: > http://home.apache.org/~ylavic/patches/httpd2.4-hcheck-after-r1779573.patch > FULL hcheck patch: > http://home.apache.org/~jim/patches/httpd2.4-hcheck.patch > http://svn.apache.org/r1789387 > (includes all hcheck related patches, including showstopper) > +1: jim, ylavic > > So, how to check this? I tried the FULL hcheck patch. It does not work, ~50% > of hunks fail. > > Ok, revert. Then I just tried this: > svn merge -c > 1784203,1784205,1784227,1784228,1784275,1785871,1786009,1789387 > ^/httpd/httpd/trunk . > > and all is well! So, the proposal could have been written as: > > *) mod_proxy_hcheck: Honor checks in Vhosts w/o hanging > svn merge -c > 1784203,1784205,1784227,1784228,1784275,1785871,1786009,1789387 > ^/httpd/httpd/trunk . > +1: jim, ylavic > > Wouldn't that be easier? I mean, sometimes trunk and backport may differ a > lot. But most commonly, only CHANGES and message-tags need to be ignored. I > myself would prefer just to copy&exec a one liner.
Agreed, I tried several merges too, that's why I added the patch I tested in the proposal (httpd2.4-hcheck-after-r1779573.patch), which corresponds to yours (as indicated in the trailer: "Merged /httpd/httpd/trunk:r1784203,1784205,1784227-1784228,1784275,1785871,1786009,1789387"). Looks like it didn't help either :/
