On 24.09.2017 23:23, danielsh_at_apache.org wrote:
> Author: danielsh
> Date: Sun Sep 24 21:23:40 2017
> New Revision: 1809570
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1809570&view=rev
> * STATUS: Edit the 1.9.x-r1808955 entry.
> Modified: subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS?rev=1809570&r1=1809569&r2=1809570&view=diff
> --- subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS (original)
> +++ subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS Sun Sep 24 21:23:40 2017
> @@ -76,6 +76,8 @@ Candidate changes:
> +1: brane
> + +0: danielsh (this works on OS X and Linux but nevertheless I wonder
> + about its portability)
It's as portable as 'httpd -V'. If someone builds with a patched httpd
that does not print a the sever version with this option, then the
script will fail.
On the other hand, if we don't backport this change, the OSX tests on
the 1.9.x branch will keep failing indefinitely because (a) 'configure'
reports the wrong version of httpd, and (b) the 1.9.x tests do not have
the concept of an httpd version whitelist.
IMO it's more important to have reliable test results on supported
branches than to support unlikely patches that people might come up with.
Received on 2017-09-27 01:28:28 CEST