Any luck with generating the diff yet? On Nov 19, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> The main thing is that it would be interesting to see > the diffs between '2.4.6 w the (several) originally proposed UDS patches > applied in order' > and '2.4.6 w proposed backport'... > > Those diffs should show just the differences between the UDS > implementations... > > On Nov 19, 2013, at 2:51 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <drugg...@primary.net> wrote: > >> Yes, agreed. Not sure if I made it clear, but I did apply r1511313 for >> the tests I did today (but not the one from yesterday). >> >> Of the several emails sent, the following have been tested: >> 2.4.6 w the (several) originally proposed UDS patches applied in order >> 2.4.6 w proposed backport (the 2 chunks around the DNS changes fail to >> apply since they do not exist in 2.4.6) >> 2.4.6 w r1511313 + proposed backport + r1543174 >> >> I DID double check that the machine wasn't requesting DNS lookups for >> the socket name or anything strange against the DNS server - but that >> was only for the test I ran today. >> >> -- >> Daniel Ruggeri >> >> On 11/19/2013 1:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> OK... the DNS lookup code seems to have changed between 2.4.6 and 2.4.7: >>> >>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1511313 >>> >>> So I'm wondering if there's something there. >> >
