On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are you going to handle all of the patches, or should I take a look at them? >
My plan was to take a look into all the patches, but I can do little technical assessment beyond the "applies and passes unit tests", and the general fact that Brian is doing a nice work... > There are two patches attached to 264. Are both of these desired, or is one > an update? > My guess is that both 264 patches are desired. the second one applies after I renamed and tweaked it a little bit, the first one prompted this email as I had not clear how to fix it. I have not looked into the remaining ones, under the hypothesis that there was a certain dependency beteween patches. Regards Santiago > On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Santiago Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> El jue, 05-06-2008 a las 10:00 -0700, Brian Eaton escribió: >> > Is anyone willing to apply the patches attached to these bugs? >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-264 >> > This is the first step towards making the gadget security token >> > more efficient and more secure, by including URL information and >> > allowing it be changed. If this patch is not acceptable for some >> > reason please let me know. >> >> SHINDIG-264 is not applying, do you have a current version to test it? >> >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-309 >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-310 >> > These fix the OAuth proxy error handling, using the OAuth proxy in >> > a production environment will be really hard without this. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Brian >> >> Regards >> -- >> Santiago Gala >> http://memojo.com/~sgala/blog/ <http://memojo.com/%7Esgala/blog/> >> >> >
