On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:44 PM Joe Schaefer <j...@sunstarsys.com> wrote: > > The reason this took so long for the community to diagnose isn't because of > ill-intent, but because it constituted > a change of behavior in the parser logic that wasn't surfaced in the Changes > file.
Please review r1905018 (with a CHANGES entry this time), along with r1905019 and r1905020 eventually. I'd suggest subscribing to c...@httpd.apache.org (if not already) and filter/mark subjects with "/httpd/apreq" if you don't want to miss anything. > > There is never going to come a time when there is any need for urgent action > on apreq- if it was easy to zero-day > it, it would have happened by now. Thus, take as much time as you need > between releases to communicate with > the community about the nature of the deltas you intend to ship with any GA > release. You have my email address > if you need to spitball any patchsets you are toying with; it's a lot less > painful to get my input in advance than after the fact. That's not how it usually works though: r1895107 is dated "Nov 17, 2021", the [VOTE] for v2.17 started "Aug 18, 2022" and ended Aug 25, which left you 8 months to review the changes in trunk (and chime in..). Regards; Yann.
