On 11/19/2005 10:20 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Saturday 19 November 2005 21:03, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Thanks. Committed to trunk as r345686
(http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=345686view=rev).
Fine. But do such trivial changes - or indeed anything that has no effect
on functionality -
On 11/20/2005 11:00 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
[..cut..]
If there is consensus that such trivial CHANGES should not be added (which I
would
also tend to with the reasons you mentioned), then I will happily remove the
CHANGE
log entry. So another comment please!
Ok, forget about the
On 11/20/05, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/20/2005 11:00 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
[..cut..]
If there is consensus that such trivial CHANGES should not be added (which
I would
also tend to with the reasons you mentioned), then I will happily remove
the CHANGE
On Sunday 20 November 2005 11:03, Jeff Trawick wrote:
I think it is a good idea for people who show up with patches out of
the blue to see a recognition of their contribution, even if
relatively small. Many people off the dev list don't realize that a
lot of fixes come from random people.
On Saturday 19 November 2005 21:03, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Thanks. Committed to trunk as r345686
(http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=345686view=rev).
Fine. But do such trivial changes - or indeed anything that has no effect
on functionality - really belong in CHANGES? The repository
In /modules/mappers/mod_negotiation.c, in function get_body, arround line
857, we have :
endbody += strlen(tag);
This could be replaced by :
endbody += taglen;
because strlen(tag) has already been computed around line 835
taglen = strlen(tag);
CJ
