I think that's what I understood :) I prefered reverting the whole and re-committing without the unrelated changes (the three apr_atoi64() in cache_util.c), and then commit those apr_atoi64() changes separately (r1715886) to propose a specific backport...
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > To be clear, I was only semi-joking about the code > changes (eg: apr_atoi64()) which did not involve > ap_casecmpstr() at all :) :) > > >> On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> That's cheating :) >> >> Yeah, reverted (r1715869) and re-committed (r1715876) with no functional >> change. >> Thanks for catching! >
