> Am 06.11.2017 um 12:25 schrieb Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com>:
> 
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 01:15:07PM +0100, Luca Toscano wrote:
>>> Hi everybody,
>>> 
>>> in https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57585 it was asked to
>>> relax a bit how IncludeOptional works to allow a config to specify a path
>>> in IncludeOptional that might not be (yet) on the file system (without
>>> using * in the directory path).
>>> 
>>> For example, in the bugzilla task this use case is presented:
>>> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57585#c6
>>> 
>>> I found the report while dealing with an apache config issue on Debian
>>> Stretch with a colleague:
>>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=878920
>>> 
>>> I am wondering if there is the chance to review the IncludeOptional
>>> behavior or if there are solid reason not to.
>> 
>> I think having IncludeOptional do nothing if any path element is missing
>> makes more sense, I'd assumed it worked like that already. Should be
>> fine to make that change in 2.4.x too IMO.
> 
> +1
> 
> Regards,
> Yann.

+1

Reply via email to