Hi everybody, Il giorno mar 11 set 2018 alle ore 09:28 <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > Author: icing > Date: Tue Sep 11 13:28:19 2018 > New Revision: 1840563 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1840563&view=rev > Log: > a cautious vote > > 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=1840563&r1=1840562&r2=1840563&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original) > +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS Tue Sep 11 13:28:19 2018 > @@ -144,6 +144,12 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: > trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1832092 > 2.4.x patch: svn merge -c 1832092 ^/httpd/httpd/trunk . > +1: elukey > + +0.5: icing: as I read this, the change preserves the special status of > headers in > + ->err_headers_out, since swapping the tables makes former error > headers normal ones. > + But it is hard to see of this was ever intentional or not. Lack of > regressions > + in testing may meaning someone out there relies on the former, > unverified > + behaviour. OTOH, it fixes and error you saw and added test for. So, > I am cautiously > + for the change.
Any more suggestions/feedback like the following for this change? I'd really like to know if it needs more work or if it is something non backportable to 2.4.x :) PS: thanks Stefan for the review! Thanks! Luca
