On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:09 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: >> 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? > > No pb, that's how things go ahead! > > I can certainly split the patch (i.e. the two first hunks only address > the 2.4.14's "defect") and commit what's already accepted from patch > v5 (the three remaining hunks). > The latter however includes the 'parsing' flag which is meant > precisely to address the different semantic between trunk and 2.4.x > (so far): in 2.4.x the parsing errors are handled by > bail_out_on_error() whereas in trunk the caller decides (eg. a handler > can return a HTTP status and hence, possibly, an ErrorDocument...). > Without the 'parsing' flag, we'd also have to use two separate log > messages (with a new AH for 2.4.x only), so I think it also helps > commonality between the two codes (that could be addressed by > splitting the same way in trunk though...). > > BTW, I do that now.
Done in r1685904 (missing backport) and r1685910 (proposal update).
