From: Nick Kew <niq@apache.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:03:09 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: Review stuff - vote, comment, promote, veto.
X-Git-Tag: 2.2.10~139
X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=c78368594de2cf31a5d9302184e7d4969675772e;p=thirdparty%2Fapache%2Fhttpd.git

Review stuff - vote, comment, promote, veto.


git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x@678179 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68
---

diff --git a/STATUS b/STATUS
index 1dc7cb4d857..36576b5bd6d 100644
--- a/STATUS
+++ b/STATUS
@@ -83,6 +83,13 @@ RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS:
 PATCHES ACCEPTED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
   [ start all new proposals below, under PATCHES PROPOSED. ]
 
+ * mod_proxy_http: Do not forward an Expect: 100-continue to
+   an HTTP/1.0 server
+   Trunk version of patch:
+         http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=661506
+   Backport version for 2.2.x of patch:
+         Trunk version of patch works
+   +1: jim, rpluem, niq
 
 PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
   [ New proposals should be added at the end of the list ]
@@ -122,28 +129,6 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
    Backport version for 2.2.x of patch:
          Trunk version of patch works
    +1: rpluem,
-   -1: niq - strcasecmp(NULL, ...) when secure is not set
-   rpluem: Good catch. Should be fixed by r660461.
-   rpluem asks: niq are your concers now addressed and can I regard
-   your veto as moot?
-
- * mod_proxy_http: Do not forward an Expect: 100-continue to
-   an HTTP/1.0 server
-   Trunk version of patch:
-         http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=661506
-   Backport version for 2.2.x of patch:
-         Trunk version of patch works
-   +1: jim, rpluem
-   niq: Interesting point in RFC2616: a client can send Expect to
-        a 1.0 server, but a proxy mustn't.  But I'm not convinced
-        by the use of force-proxy-request-1.0, when RFC2616 suggests
-        caching backend response headers.
-   rpluem: It's a first and quick start. The RFC says that we as a
-   proxy must not sent it to a server from which we know that it
-   speaks HTTP/1.0. If we set force-proxy-request-1.0 we *know*
-   that we speak HTTP/1.0 with this server. A perfect solution
-   would be of course to memorize the HTTP version for each
-   (or a reasonable number) server and act accordingly.
 
  * mod_rewrite: Preserve the query string when [proxy,noescape]. PR 45247.
    Caused by r649840/trunk, r663593/2.2.x
@@ -151,7 +136,7 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
         http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=670061
    Backport version for 2.2.x of updated patch:
         http://people.apache.org/~tdonovan/diffs/mod_rewrite_proxy_esc_2.2.x.diff
-   +1: rpluem
+   +1: rpluem, niq
 
  * mod_auth_digest: Detect during startup when AuthDigestProvider
    is configured to use an incompatible provider via AuthnProviderAlias.
@@ -164,6 +149,10 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
    Backport version for 2.2.x of patch:
         http://people.apache.org/~covener/2.2.x-digest_vs_authnalias-2.diff
    +1: covener, rpluem
+   -1: niq: looks like a major MMN bump to me, in that it'll
+            break binary compatibility with old compilations
+            of authn modules (has_realm_hash being undefined).
+            Why not just test get_realm_hash - as in the else clause?
 
  * core, authn/z: Avoid calling access control hooks for internal requests
    with configurations which match those of initial request.  Revert to
@@ -210,7 +199,7 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
         http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=674000&view=rev
      Backport version for 2.2.x of patch:
         Trunk version of patch works
-    +1: rpluem,
+    +1: rpluem, niq
 
 PATCHES/ISSUES THAT ARE STALLED