From: William A. Rowe Jr <wrowe@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:54:21 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: promoting 2.0 version patches.
X-Git-Tag: 2.0.62~11
X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=acac88274948d18b3b5c9a2b51579dd8d64bc9f4;p=thirdparty%2Fapache%2Fhttpd.git

promoting 2.0 version patches.


git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x@607938 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68
---

diff --git a/STATUS b/STATUS
index d8d569ae5e7..c469e043fea 100644
--- a/STATUS
+++ b/STATUS
@@ -129,7 +129,8 @@ RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS:
        http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=607282&view=rev
     Backport version for 2.0.x of patch:
        http://awe.com/e8f6ad05238f8/CVE-2007-6388-httpd-2.x.patch
-    +1: rpluem, fuankg
+    +1: rpluem, fuankg, wrowe
+    wrowe is +1 for having that default to a value of 10 instead of 1 @ln# 307
 
 PATCHES ACCEPTED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
   [ start all new proposals below, under PATCHES PROPOSED. ]
@@ -145,7 +146,7 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
     nobody can actually remember why this limitation was introduced at all 
     (r94028) and the mailing list archives also gave no hint.
       http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=327179
-    +0: covener
+    +0: covener, wrowe
           do we need to make people opt-in for this behavior to 
           backport it to 2.0.x? What mechanism?
 
@@ -163,7 +164,7 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
        http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=164538
     Backport version for 2.0.x of patch:
        http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/httpd-2.0.x-ap_vhost_iterate_given_conn.diff
-    +1: fuankg
+    +1: fuankg, wrowe
 
 PATCHES TO BACKPORT THAT ARE ON HOLD OR NOT GOING ANYWHERE SOON: