http: update libevent workaround to correct version #27949
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The libevent bug described in libevent/libevent@5ff8eb2 was already patched in release-2.1.9-beta, with cherry-picked commits 5b40744d1581447f5b4496ee8d4807383e468e7a and b25813800f97179b2355a7b4b3557e6a7f568df2. There should be no side-effects by re-applying the workaround on an already patched version of libevent, but it is best to set the correct version number to avoid confusion.
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. ReviewsSee the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update. ConflictsReviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Concept ACK.
I've checked the 2 fixes, checked the release-2.1.9-beta's changelog, and after downloading the release-2.1.9-beta, checked that the changes are in there too.
fanquake
approved these changes
Jun 28, 2023
sidhujag
pushed a commit
to syscoin/syscoin
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 30, 2023
79d343a http: update libevent workaround to correct version (stickies-v) Pull request description: The libevent bug described in libevent/libevent@5ff8eb2 was already patched in [release-2.1.9-beta](https://github.com/libevent/libevent/releases/tag/release-2.1.9-beta), with cherry-picked commits [5b40744d1581447f5b4496ee8d4807383e468e7a](libevent/libevent@5b40744) and [b25813800f97179b2355a7b4b3557e6a7f568df2](libevent/libevent@b258138). There should be no side-effects by re-applying the workaround on an already patched version of libevent (as is currently done in master for people running libevent between 2.1.9 and 2.1.12), but it is best to just set the correct version number to avoid confusion. This will prevent situations like e.g. in bitcoin#27909 (comment), where a reverse workaround was incorrectly applied to the wrong version range. ACKs for top commit: fanquake: ACK 79d343a Tree-SHA512: 56d2576411cf38e56d0976523fec951e032a48e35af293ed1ef3af820af940b26f779b9197baaed6d8b79bd1c7f7334646b9d73f80610d63cffbc955958ca8a0
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The libevent bug described in libevent/libevent@5ff8eb2 was already patched in release-2.1.9-beta, with cherry-picked commits 5b40744d1581447f5b4496ee8d4807383e468e7a and b25813800f97179b2355a7b4b3557e6a7f568df2.
There should be no side-effects by re-applying the workaround on an already patched version of libevent (as is currently done in master for people running libevent between 2.1.9 and 2.1.12), but it is best to just set the correct version number to avoid confusion.
This will prevent situations like e.g. in #27909 (comment), where a reverse workaround was incorrectly applied to the wrong version range.