Note in STATUS I've requested that you split the approved patch from security@ that seemed to be lost in long and winding patch versioning from the spaces accepted. A patch should correct one thing, not several, it makes these too difficult to review when folks have a small window of free time. Your proposed rolled-up patch didn't correspond to trunk, and the 'parsing' flag seems unnecessary. Two error messages would have been easier on reviewers anyways.
Hopefully all constructive criticism easily agreed to? On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > Sooo.... in order to get 2.4.15 out, it would be nice to have > > a patch :) > > Isn't the one proposed in STATUS suitable (section SHOWSTOPPERS)? > It has been positively tested by Steffen in [1] and also passes the > new framework tests from [2]. > > [1] > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201506.mbox/%3CFB1A6FB8F6F046AAA243E9583A4CA9BD%40father%3E > [2] http://svn.apache.org/r1685463 >
