On Aug 31, 2011, at 8:21 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Orton [mailto:jor...@redhat.com] >> Sent: Mittwoch, 31. August 2011 11:13 >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Regression with range fix >> >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 08:51:55PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote: >>> The first regression report, though slightly too late for the vote: >>> >>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639825 >>> >>> The byterange_filter.c in the Debian update is exactly the one from >>> 2.2.20. I will keep you updated. >> >> Hi; I'm just back from holiday and catching up. >> >> The behaviour changes in the patch which could feasibly break >> non-compliant clients are: >> >> a) using 200 in some cases where a 206 response would end up being >> larger >> >> b) using a chunked response where previously C-L was always used, in >> cases where >=32 ranges are being returned >> >> Anything else to watch out for? >> >> Looking at the patch in 2.2.x; there is a lot of effort expended >> deadling with apr_bucket_split() returning ENOTIMPL - that looks >> unnecessary; the filter will only handle brigades containing buckets >> with known length, and all such buckets "must" be _split-able. > > So you think we can rip out the whole if (rv == APR_ENOTIMPL) blocks? >
Belt and suspenders?
