Sorry, I thought the diffs I sent off list were good enough. I'll have to see if I even still have the original build lying around. Effectively, I just took the list of patches in the backport proposal and applied them one at a time to the 2.4.6 sources. If I can't find the build, I'll do the same over and send that instead.
-- Daniel Ruggeri On 11/22/2013 10:38 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > 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.
