Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > On 08/13/2007 09:34 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: >>>> On 08/13/2007 07:38 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >>>>> Jim's spearheaded an effort to release httpd-2.0.60 and we've >>>>> discovered a set of socket issues that need to be corrected by >>>>> apr-0.9.15. >>>> How do we plan to address these? Like in 1.2.x by reverting the >>>> backports (which seems to make sense to me given the comments >>>> in r473681, http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=473681)? >>>> Or should we backport r447894? >>>> I am happy to proceed either way with a preference of reverting. >>> That would be my pref as well... >> +1. I raised an objection when this first went in that changing the >> "contract" was iffy. Our entire versioning rules were based on the >> fact that once you have a specific major, minimum .minor - that's it. >> Your app is safe. >> >> It's a nice idea in 1.3, but since it's causing issues, simply revert. > > Done in r565517.
Wasn't the (*new)->remote_addr_unknown = 0; causing the problem? Cheers Jean-Frederic > > Regards > > Rüdiger > >
