On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 8:11 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018, 06:34 Eric Covener <covener@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Despite the directory structure, this was not part of a "module" in
>> the httpd/LoadModule sense. I think it's reasonable to pull it "up"
>> which is simpler then trying to push more stuff down into
> Note that relocation is a major mmn bump, due to two level namespaces...
> Which isn't usual apparent on flat namespace architectures such as Linux.
1. we move+rename the functions to "server/protocol.c" and have and
the "modules/http/http_etag.c" ones simply call the formers (MINOR
2. we then "svn remove" modules/http/http_etag.c and rename back
ap_make_etag_core() and ap_set_etag_core() to their original names
(MAJOR bump, both for namespace and removal of transient _core()
That way 1. would be backportable to 2.4.x, and after 2/ trunk in the
state we want it to be.
Does it sound good?