]> granicus.if.org Git - apache/commitdiff
Thanks, Yann!
authorJeff Trawick <trawick@apache.org>
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:12:50 +0000 (11:12 +0000)
committerJeff Trawick <trawick@apache.org>
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:12:50 +0000 (11:12 +0000)
git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x@1603129 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68

STATUS

diff --git a/STATUS b/STATUS
index a295386f2db24d5a88e720f5def2292a973e59a1..a04eac7691be75a1a72724d8af49d20d287bdb53 100644 (file)
--- a/STATUS
+++ b/STATUS
@@ -97,14 +97,17 @@ CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
 RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS:
 
    * mod_proxy_fcgi: Repair sending empty stdin after r1601749 (i.e., regression
-     in 2.4.x branch after 2.4.9)
+     in 2.4.x branch after 2.4.9), repair lost error condition
      trunk: http://svn.apache.org/r1603027
             http://svn.apache.org/r1603029
-     2.4.x: http://people.apache.org/~trawick/r1603027_plus_r1603029.txt
-            (patch not needed if/when r1592032, proposed below, is approved)
+            http://svn.apache.org/1603122
+     2.4.x: http://people.apache.org/~trawick/r1603027_plus_r1603029_plus_r1603122.txt
+            (the patch file resolves a small intersection with r1592032)
      +1: trawick
      ylavic: what's the point with r1592032 (does not seem to be related, at
      least fixing the above)?
+     trawick: the patch resolves a conflict when merging these revisions
+              if r1592032 is not yet in the 2.4.x branch
 
 PATCHES ACCEPTED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
   [ start all new proposals below, under PATCHES PROPOSED. ]
@@ -286,11 +289,16 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
      note: depends on ap_shutdown_conn() from r1601185 above.
      +1: ylavic
 
-   * mod_proxy_fcgi: better error messages
+   * mod_proxy_fcgi: better error messages, and fix an old bug where the error
+                     condition was forgotten
      trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1592032
      2.4.x patch: trunk patch works
      +1: trawick
      ylavic: with r1603122?
+     trawick: I added r1603122 to the fix-regression proposal at the top.
+              r1592032 does fix an old bug similar to what you fixed in 
+              r1603122, but I think that r1603122 should be grouped with
+              the other follow-ups to r1601749.  (BTW, thanks!!!)
 
 OTHER PROPOSALS