Possibly yes. Is the "skips over backreferences" concern (-0 in
STATUS) about the "do {} while" loop in r1826289, or more generally
about the whole match à la ap_strcmp_match() where backrefs are
considered wildcards?On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 1:22 AM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote: > Did you mean to add r1826289? > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 5:56 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Author: ylavic >> Date: Thu Mar 8 22:56:57 2018 >> New Revision: 1826284 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1826284&view=rev >> Log: >> Update link (STALLED, but seems related to PR 62167, should we discuss >> it...). >> >> Modified: >> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS >> >> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS?rev=1826284&r1=1826283&r2=1826284&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original) >> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS Thu Mar 8 22:56:57 2018 >> @@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ PATCHES/ISSUES THAT ARE STALLED >> http://svn.apache.org/r1641381 >> ylavic: Merge patch provided (reusing new->real to avoid double >> de_socketfy() call). >> Also added missing r1609688 to the patchset. >> - 2.4.x patch: >> http://people.apache.org/~ylavic/httpd-2.4.x-ap_proxy_define_match_worker.patch >> + 2.4.x patch: >> http://home.apache.org/~ylavic/patches/httpd-2.4.x-ap_proxy_define_match_worker.patch >> +1: ylavic >> -0: covener tried to review this one in Austin with Jeff. Does the >> added match function >> really cover a very narrow set of parameters with the way it skips >> over backreferences? >> >> > > > > -- > Eric Covener > [email protected]
