Re: svn commit: r1740928 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: ./ include/ modules/http2/ modules/proxy/ modules/ssl/ server/

[Yann Ylavic]

Committed something with explanations (hopefully) in r1812193. Does it
sound good?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:54 AM, William A Rowe Jr  wrote:
> I will review again tomorrow.
>
> My jump-around idea was to check against all of the bits in not dir loc
> file, and if the module's MMN minor is too early, treat the  section
> as if that bit is set.
>
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2017 16:13, "Yann Ylavic"  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Yann Ylavic  wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Yann Ylavic 
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Yann Ylavic 
>>> wrote:

 Thus, how about if there, for 2.4.x only (i.e. backport patch), we'd
 instead check for:
> +|| (((forbidden & NOT_IN_PROXY)
> + || (forbidden & NOT_IN_DIR_LOC_FILE) ==
> NOT_IN_DIR_LOC_FILE
> + || (forbidden & GLOBAL_ONLY) == GLOBAL_ONLY)
> +&& ((found = ...)
> +|| ...)))
 ?
>>>
>>> Looks like there are other usages of NOT_IN_DIR_LOC_FILE we should
>>> hack in ap_check_cmd_context() too, but you probably see the idea...
>>
>> Actually, I think the correct fix, even for 2.5/trunk, is something
>> for the attached patch.
>> WDYT?
>
> Sorry, spoke^R patched too soon, this v2 is more correct I guess.
>
>

Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

[Jim Jagielski]

OtherBill, I see that 2.4.29 wasn't tagged. Are you still planning on
doing so? I can T on Monday if you like.