Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote: >All, > >On 10/9/12 6:07 PM, bugzi...@apache.org wrote: >> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53986 >> >> --- Comment #4 from Christopher Schultz ><ch...@christopherschultz.net> --- >> (In reply to comment #3) >>> Possible cause: r1381417 >> >> Reverting that patch resolves the issue in 7.0.x/trunk, so the >regression >> appears to be in there. I'm not sure where, though. > >Given that r1381417 breaks comment-parsing, should we just revert the >whole thing? I have a test case set up that currently fails in >7.0.x/trunk but runs correctly with r1381417 reverted. > >My plan is to commit the revert of r1381417 plus the test case, then >mark the original bug as reopened and ask the original author of the >patch if they might look into why comments aren't working properly. The >addition of the aforementioned test case should help.
I don't see the need to revert just yet. Let's see how easy the fix is. I'd suggest reopening the issue and attaching your test case to the parsing bug report. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
