On Jun 14, 2013 11:36 AM, "Eric Covener" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:41 AM, André Malo <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 12 June 2013 21:18:05 Stefan Fritsch wrote: > >> On Tuesday 11 June 2013, André Malo wrote: > >> > > trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1491155 > >> > > 2.4.x patch: trunk patch works > >> > > nd: why would you do that in a stable branch? > >> > > > >> > > + sf: Because it is only annoying and serves no purpose > >> > > anymore. If you + want, we can make it a minor MMN bump > >> > > for adding a "new" API. +1: sf, covener > >> > > > >> > > -1: nd > >> > > >> > Long discussions in STATUS are kinda tedious ;-) > >> > > >> > Well, I think, such changes are what trunk is for. Why not simply > >> > leave everything below as-is? Even more if it removes only an > >> > annoyance? Or is there a real technical reason I'm just not seeing > >> > right now? > > > > [...] > >> > >> Or, is there a real technical reason to keep it broken in 2.4? > > > > Annoying rhetoric games aside - we went from "only annoying" to "broken". What > > is it now? > > > > No other opinion on this? > > I think Stefan did it justice in the STATUS remark. I don't really > understand the objection. Are you afraid a strtoul will sneak into one > of our modules, or that a module developer needs this macro to protect > them from it? > > -- > Eric Covener > [email protected]
If I can interject randomly... Give it a minor bump so module authors can hide their workarounds for older httpd in a self-documenting way, and so there's a CYA if some very odd, existing module workaround breaks unexpectedly...
