Hi
I have proposed for backport for 2.4. See STATUS.
http://svn.apache.org/r1611978
http://svn.apache.org/r1612068
should merge without any trouble and should not generate any conflict
with code only in trunk, should it be backported one day.
What I have submitted and not proposed for backport yet are:
http://svn.apache.org/r1611980 --> depends of r1608202
http://svn.apache.org/r1611979 --> depends of r1610814
My may concern is to keep 2.4 and trunk as close as possible, but should
I also see what can be backported to 2.2 ?
Best regards,
CJ
Le 20/07/2014 15:25, William A. Rowe Jr. a écrit :
I'd strongly encourage backporting, if accepted on 2.x branch.
The APnnnnn code exists to find guidance through web, email archives
and forum searches. Keeping these consistent between 2.4 and 2.next
is crucial.
It also ensures further backports apply without a host of future
conflicts.
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Le 19/07/2014 22:44, William A. Rowe Jr. a écrit :
>
> If it violates 80 col formatting style rule, absolutely do not shift
> the APLOGNO macro to the first line.
>
Sure.
Moreover, when submitting patches, I'll take care to only propose things
that can be backported easily.
Changes relying on other changes, not backported yet, will either be
submitted as individual patches or will remain in my tree.
Same for changes that could generate conflict when merging other
changes, should they be backported one day.
Best regards,
CJ
