Re: backport proposals

2017-04-27 Thread Daniel Ruggeri
Which reminds me... How about that cool proxy protocol patch? Anyone want to give it a whirl? ;-) -- Daniel Ruggeri Original Message From: Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> Sent: April 27, 2017 9:55:39 AM CDT To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: backport proposals

Re: backport proposals

2017-04-27 Thread Jacob Champion
On 04/27/2017 07:15 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: So, the proposal could have been written as: *) mod_proxy_hcheck: Honor checks in Vhosts w/o hanging svn merge -c 1784203,1784205,1784227,1784228,1784275,1785871,1786009,1789387 ^/httpd/httpd/trunk . +1: jim, ylavic Wouldn't that be easier? +1,

Re: backport proposals

2017-04-27 Thread Jim Jagielski
Yeah... sometimes it is easier to create a "combined" patchfile which shows the collected changes, for ease of reviewing, but, as you say, it can get out of sync as other patches are backported, esp if the proposed backport is in STATUS for a semi-extended period of time. > On Apr 27, 2017, at

Re: backport proposals

2017-04-27 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > Take this as an observation about proposals in general, nothing wrong with > this one in particular: > > *) mod_proxy_hcheck: Honor checks in Vhosts w/o hanging > trunk patch:

Re: backport proposals

2017-04-27 Thread Eric Covener
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > Take this as an observation about proposals in general, nothing wrong with > this one in particular: > > *) mod_proxy_hcheck: Honor checks in Vhosts w/o hanging > trunk patch:

backport proposals

2017-04-27 Thread Stefan Eissing
Take this as an observation about proposals in general, nothing wrong with this one in particular: *) mod_proxy_hcheck: Honor checks in Vhosts w/o hanging trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1784203 http://svn.apache.org/r1784205

Re: stalled backport proposals...

2011-02-13 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 02/12/2011 01:15 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: On 2/11/2011 8:26 AM, Eric Covener wrote: Thanks, went ahead and pushed them down since it's easy enough to put any of them back. Which reminds me... anyone care to add a +1 or begin a discussion about the mod_proxy change I had

stalled backport proposals...

2011-02-11 Thread Eric Covener
First 5 backport proposals in 2.2.x seem to be stalled out... time to push them down? -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com

Re: stalled backport proposals...

2011-02-11 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote: First 5 backport proposals in 2.2.x seem to be stalled out... time to push them down? agreed; 4/5 need real work done before there is something to vote on; the other is at least potentially disruptive and has had ample time

Re: stalled backport proposals...

2011-02-11 Thread Eric Covener
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote: First 5 backport proposals in 2.2.x seem to be stalled out... time to push them down? agreed; 4/5 need real work done before there is something to vote

Re: stalled backport proposals...

2011-02-11 Thread Daniel Ruggeri
On 2/11/2011 8:26 AM, Eric Covener wrote: Thanks, went ahead and pushed them down since it's easy enough to put any of them back. Which reminds me... anyone care to add a +1 or begin a discussion about the mod_proxy change I had submitted? rpluem and covener have given the +1... but I