From 858130e217fac66836c3321858a9e82025780b53 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Jagielski Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 17:30:26 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Respond to rpluem's ball busting :) git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x@485013 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68 --- STATUS | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/STATUS b/STATUS index 2d85d5dcb34..d72903b55db 100644 --- a/STATUS +++ b/STATUS @@ -275,6 +275,9 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: +1: jim +0: rpluem: Shouldn't we remove this code on 2.2.x? Keeping seems to be ok for me on trunk, but on a stable branch? + jim says: the reason why we keep it is in case we + ever start using it. So we keep the framework in + that case. Make trunk backports easier. * mod_proxy: Log unlock errors (as we do with locking errors). Add additional clarification on where the error occurred. @@ -283,7 +286,7 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=484787 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=484978 2.2.x version of patch: - Trunk version works. + For r484787, see: http://people.apache.org/~jim/patches/lock.txt + otherwise, trunk version works. +1: jim - rpluem says: r484787 does not apply cleanly to 2.2.x -- 2.47.2