Rainer, On 6/6/13 5:06 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: > On 06.06.2013 22:54, Rainer Jung wrote: >> On 06.06.2013 19:56, Christopher Schultz wrote: >>> Rainer, >>> >>> On 6/6/13 1:32 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: >>>> On 06.06.2013 18:22, Christopher Schultz wrote: >> >>>> Proposals mostly for the C files probably make sense in a STATUS file >>>> here if they are backports from native trunk. >>> >>> I was going to make a C-language proposal. >>> >>> I can't seem to get "configure" to work in trunk because some macros >>> aren't working properly (see below), so I've been working in the 1.1.x >>> branch. >> >> See below below :) >> >>> PS Here's what I get when trying to build tcnative-trunk: >> >> ... snip ... >> >> configure.in was broken as was the new java detection macro. Hopefully >> fixed in the last two commits. "svn up" and there you go. > > I should also warn you: native trunk is not in good shape. Many C files > are behind the 1.1 ones. trunk was created for some new features and > increased APR minimum version > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/tomcat-dev/200810.mbox/%3c48e6302b.7060...@kippdata.de%3E > > but later lots of changes were applied directly to 1.1 and trunk was > forgotten. See the January 2013 discussion thread on tcnative. The clean > up for the native c files didn't happen.
In this particular case, it seems like my changes should be relatively compatible between the two. Should I patch trunk and back-port, patch 1.1 and forward-port, or patch 1.1 and ignore trunk (thus making the problem worse). I suspect trunk -> 1.1 since it looks straightforward. (Commit after review, of course) Thanks, -chris
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
