From: Graham Leggett <minfrin@apache.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 15:57:54 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: Add some votes
X-Git-Tag: 2.0.53~240
X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=92640f0bcbbee984f6f7d184d356b4ecc7ac5c16;p=thirdparty%2Fapache%2Fhttpd.git

Add some votes
PR:
Obtained from:
Submitted by:
Reviewed by:


git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/APACHE_2_0_BRANCH@105372 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68
---

diff --git a/STATUS b/STATUS
index a1e662bc763..37f80f4ec0a 100644
--- a/STATUS
+++ b/STATUS
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 APACHE 2.0 STATUS:                                              -*-text-*-
-Last modified at [$Date: 2004/10/02 20:03:43 $]
+Last modified at [$Date: 2004/10/03 15:57:54 $]
 
 Release:
 
@@ -88,11 +88,11 @@ PATCHES TO BACKPORT FROM 2.1
 
     *) Correctly store cache content type. PR 30278
        modules/experimental/mod_disk_cache.c?r1=1.62&r2=1.63
-       +1: stoddard, jerenkrantz
+       +1: stoddard, jerenkrantz, minfrin
 
     *) Do not store aborted content. PR 21492.
        modules/experimental/mod_disk_cache.c?r1=1.63&r2=1.64
-       +1: stoddard, jerenkrantz
+       +1: stoddard, jerenkrantz, minfrin
 
     *) Try to correctly follow RFC 2616 13.3 on validating stale cache
        responses by teaching mod_cache's cache_select_url and
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ PATCHES TO BACKPORT FROM 2.1
         modules/experimental/mod_cache.h?r1=1.50&r2=1.51
         modules/experimental/mod_disk_cache.c?r1=1.64&r2=1.65
         modules/experimental/mod_mem_cache.c?r1=1.117&r2=1.118
-       +1: stoddard, jerenkrantz
+       +1: stoddard, jerenkrantz, minfrin
 
     *) mod_rewrite: Fix 0 bytes write into random memory position. PR 31036.
        (2.0 + 1.3)
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ PATCHES TO BACKPORT FROM 2.1
        load balancing support in mod_proxy.
          include/scoreboard.h: 1.52
          server/scoreboard.c: 1.75
-       +1: minfrin
+       +0: minfrin: it makes sense for v2.1 or v2.2
        -0: nd, jerenkrantz
            nd: -0 as in "it should be considered as a 2.1 feature".
               If the modified structures are public (are they?), I'm just -1.