On 10/09/2013 17:10, Christopher Schultz wrote: > Mark, > > On 9/10/13 11:43 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: >> On 10/09/2013 15:44, schu...@apache.org wrote: >>> Author: schultz Date: Tue Sep 10 14:44:15 2013 New Revision: >>> 1521514 >>> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1521514 Log: Fix >>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54691 >>> >>> Add configuration property "protocols" alias: >>> "sslEnabledProtocols" Document the as-yet-undocumented property >>> (only documented sslEnabledProtocols, to match Tomcat 7/8 >>> documentation). >>> >>> Modified: >>> tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/java/org/apache/catalina/connector/Connector.java >>> >>> tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/webapps/docs/changelog.xml >>> tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/webapps/docs/config/http.xml >> >> This is Tomcat 6 which is RTC not CTR. There should have been a >> proposal in the status file with 3 +1 votes before this was >> applied. > > Yipes. > >> Retrospectively, you have my +1. > > Well. Shall I do things properly and revert the patch, make a > proposal, etc. or can I get a vote by acclimation and avoid the svn > acrobatics? I'm okay with reverting... I just wanted to avoid it if > it didn't really matter (code change is quite trivial after all) > and the team was okay with it.
I've done this before and opted for avoiding the svn acrobatics. I'd wait to see if you get another +1. If you don't after a few days then think about reverting it. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
