On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Jacob Champion <champio...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/08/2017 07:56 PM, Eric Covener wrote: >> >> Assuming there's some alternate path that actually does change >> SCRIPT_NAME by default, we a) don't have any complaint about >> SCRIPT_NAME and b) have the SetEnv thing. If we want more options, >> maybe we can stash this older SCRIPT_NAME into a new variable and show >> how to copy it over SCRIPT_NAME? > > > ...and restarting this conversation, since the new behavior seems to have a > bug: > > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61202 > > Can we do a quick fixup and reroll before it's too late?
Define reroll? too late? I know what you mean by fixup, hopefully not so quick as to overlook other tangential issues. But we never 're-roll', we discard the candidate and roll the next version (this assures that whomever has httpd-2.4.26.tar.gz in their hands has the one and only one package of that name that was ever created.) And 2.4.26 is released, announcement is away. Would encourage us to wait at least a couple more days for other, unrelated regression reports to filter in while fixing this defect. But there is nothing stopping a 2.4.27 in rapid succession, we simply don't retroactively "retract" releases.
