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
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,
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
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:
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:
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
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
First 5 backport proposals in 2.2.x seem to be stalled out... time to
push them down?
--
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo