Re: svn commit: r1738292 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

2016-04-11 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:32 PM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > > It was working, in the sense that it had the intended effect (the > [un]define > > took effect) in the broader global context. > > > >

Re: svn commit: r1738292 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

2016-04-08 Thread Eric Covener
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:32 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > It was working, in the sense that it had the intended effect (the [un]define > took effect) in the broader global context. > > This is a breaking change to some potentially existing configs, however > misguided they

Re: svn commit: r1738292 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

2016-04-08 Thread William A Rowe Jr
It was working, in the sense that it had the intended effect (the [un]define took effect) in the broader global context. This is a breaking change to some potentially existing configs, however misguided they are, which is the sort of thing we've avoided in the released branch. Could we log an