On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 12:49 PM Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > > On 10 Dec 2020, at 18:04, yla...@apache.org wrote: > > Author: ylavic > Date: Thu Dec 10 16:04:34 2020 > New Revision: 1884280 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1884280&view=rev > Log: > Revert r1480058, -1'ed on dev@ and STATUS. > > Never backported (and never will supposedly), while often creating > merge conflicts. > > You’ve just reverted a fix to an RFC violation that was picked up by the > CoAdvisor test suite.
Where is this test suite? Which RFC violation, a proxy socket connection error should return 504 Gateway Timeout?? I see that RFC2616 14.9.4 is about cache, why don't you fix this in mod_cache? > > “Creating merge conflicts” is not a sufficient technical justification for a > veto that results in the re-introduction of an RFC violation. > > Please back this out. > > See > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/be0e7bdc3510fddd2dd80accece44917eba361ef4fcc713dd0f7f7fa%401367999236%40%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E > and > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6e63271b308a2723285d288857318e7bb51b6756690514d9bc75a71b%401371148914%40%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E > > Please resolve the discussion above. You should do that, it's not my veto. Failing to resolve the discussion, the commit should be reverted right? > > The last on the thread is that Roy was asked for advice, but he was busy. In > the light of RFC7230 it would be useful to get a new answer on this question. Sure. Regards; Yann.
