Which reminds me... How about that cool proxy protocol patch? Anyone want to 
give it a whirl? ;-)
Daniel Ruggeri

-------- Original Message --------
From: Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>
Sent: April 27, 2017 9:55:39 AM CDT
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: backport proposals

Yeah... sometimes it is easier to create a "combined" patchfile
which shows the collected changes, for ease of reviewing, but, as
you say, it can get out of sync as other patches are backported,
esp if the proposed backport is in STATUS for a semi-extended
period of time.

> On Apr 27, 2017, at 10:47 AM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Stefan Eissing
> <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> 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 .
> Looks much easier to me.  Another option is what kotkov recently used
> Not 100% clear to me in this case that the collected patch was really
> just meant to be the same revs + merge conflicts due to the wording.

Reply via email to