Loading STATUS +5 −2 Changes for STATUS: 5 added lines, 2 removed lines. Original line number Diff line number Diff line Loading @@ -275,6 +275,9 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: +1: jim +0: rpluem: Shouldn't we remove this code on 2.2.x? Keeping seems to be ok for me on trunk, but on a stable branch? jim says: the reason why we keep it is in case we ever start using it. So we keep the framework in that case. Make trunk backports easier. * mod_proxy: Log unlock errors (as we do with locking errors). Add additional clarification on where the error occurred. Loading @@ -283,7 +286,7 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=484787 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=484978 2.2.x version of patch: Trunk version works. For r484787, see: http://people.apache.org/~jim/patches/lock.txt otherwise, trunk version works. +1: jim rpluem says: r484787 does not apply cleanly to 2.2.x Loading
STATUS +5 −2 Changes for STATUS: 5 added lines, 2 removed lines. Original line number Diff line number Diff line Loading @@ -275,6 +275,9 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: +1: jim +0: rpluem: Shouldn't we remove this code on 2.2.x? Keeping seems to be ok for me on trunk, but on a stable branch? jim says: the reason why we keep it is in case we ever start using it. So we keep the framework in that case. Make trunk backports easier. * mod_proxy: Log unlock errors (as we do with locking errors). Add additional clarification on where the error occurred. Loading @@ -283,7 +286,7 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=484787 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=484978 2.2.x version of patch: Trunk version works. For r484787, see: http://people.apache.org/~jim/patches/lock.txt otherwise, trunk version works. +1: jim rpluem says: r484787 does not apply cleanly to 2.2.x