From 3fbe99b04dc57d391372f36022a944892fa30a20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Guenter Knauf Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 18:46:37 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] removed tabs. git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x@609732 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68 --- STATUS | 16 ++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/STATUS b/STATUS index e696df87cf0..8753dabae86 100644 --- a/STATUS +++ b/STATUS @@ -250,14 +250,14 @@ PATCHES TO BACKPORT THAT ARE ON HOLD OR NOT GOING ANYWHERE SOON: +1: bnicholes, jim, wrowe 0: nd, jerenkrantz nd: can the local_addr->port ever be 0? - bnicholes response: I couldn't tell you for sure if local_addr->port - could be 0. But it makes sense that if it were then Apache - wouldn't be listening on any port so it wouldn't matter anyway. + bnicholes response: I couldn't tell you for sure if local_addr->port + could be 0. But it makes sense that if it were then Apache + wouldn't be listening on any port so it wouldn't matter anyway. nd replies: But if it can't be 0 the alternatives thereafter make no sense anymore, right? - jim proposes: UseCanonicalName Client directive - which implements this, keeping UseCanonicalName Off - "as is". + jim proposes: UseCanonicalName Client directive + which implements this, keeping UseCanonicalName Off + "as is". *) ThreadStackSize for Win32 and threaded MPMs trawick will eventually put together a patch for httpd 2.0.next @@ -406,10 +406,10 @@ RELEASE NON-SHOWSTOPPERS BUT WOULD BE REAL NICE TO WRAP THESE UP: Message-ID: <065701c14526$495203b0$96c0b0d0@roweclan.net> [Deleted comments regarding the ap_run_handler phase, as irrelevant as BillS points out that "common case will be caught in - default_handler already (with the r->finfo.filetype == 0 check)" + default_handler already (with the r->finfo.filetype == 0 check)" and the issue is detecting this -before- we try to run the req.] - gregames says: can this happen somehow without a broken module + gregames says: can this happen somehow without a broken module being involved? If not, why waste cycles trying to defend against potential broken modules? It seems futile. wrowe counters: no, it shouldn't happen unless the module is broken. -- 2.47.2