I was literally switching between a dead and live box repairing a corrupted
boot volume, so you may be right or I might have studied a stale patch.
Will refresh trunk in a few minutes here with suggested changes.
On Jun 29, 2015 7:42 PM, "Yann Ylavic" <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:03 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
> > I can't approve this semantic mess.
> >
> > EITHER it is inherit_before on trunk-2.4-2.2 with a change of default
> > behavior, or it is inherit_after, again across all branches with a
> change of
> > default behavior. The delta should consist of a one line difference,
> > evaluating inheritance behavior within the merge.
>
> Well, that's the case already, no?
> With 2.4.x patch applied:
>
> --- 2.4.x/modules/filters/mod_substitute.c 2015-06-30
> 01:52:18.595947091 +0200
> +++ trunk/modules/filters/mod_substitute.c 2015-06-30
> 01:41:18.027679427 +0200
> @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@
> subst_dir_conf *over = (subst_dir_conf *) overv;
>
> a->inherit_before = (over->inherit_before > 0 ||
> (over->inherit_before < 0 &&
> -
> base->inherit_before != 0));
> +
> base->inherit_before > 0));
> if (a->inherit_before) {
> a->patterns = apr_array_append(p, base->patterns,
> over->patterns);
>
> >
> > Please express your preference and I will offer several style fixes on
> trunk
> > that make this easier to follow, but we are not adding one directive to
> > trunk and a different one to 2.4 & 2.2 :-/
>
> Same directive in trunk and 2.[24] branches, default only changes, I
> don't see what you mean.
> This proposal allows to merge the inherit_before flag itself, that may
> be confusing / not suitable / overkill (dunno), so feel free to
> implement simpler/better code (the default merge-base-before-over
> semantic must be preserved for the branches, though).
>
