A sort of unusual case though, first fix is a docs patch, then a test case for the newly-documented 16 year old behavior :) +1 to the collected feedback and plan. On Jun 22, 2015 9:32 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Agreed. We should also, everytime we catch something like this, > add a test-case to the perl test framework to ensure we don't trip > over it again :) > > > On Jun 22, 2015, at 8:24 AM, Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de> > wrote: > > > > Am 22.06.2015 um 14:04 schrieb Jeff Trawick: > >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com > >> <mailto:j...@jagunet.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Seems that 3rd time was NOT the charm. > >> > >> Due to the regression I am canceling this VOTE. > >> > >> Let's patch 2.4.16-dev ASAP to handle this and I will T&R 2.4.16 > >> forthwith. > >> > >> > >> Thanks, Jim! We'll get through this eventually :) > >> > >> (And thanks Steffen and Reindl too!) > > > > +1 to both statements. > > > > My test went threw nicely, but due to the problem with the RedirectMatch > I would have also voted -1. > > > > It is good we have those additional testers in the loop. > > > > Thanks > > > > Rainer > > > >
