Actually, it is:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1772334
So I would like to see the enhancement in:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/03a360e5214052b38752d10a75f864e59d518cd6ac8ddbbcefe91c18@%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E
applied to trunk and then proposed for backport.
> On Dec 15, 2016, at 2:55 PM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>>> From what I can see, there are no show-stoppers and
>>>> all my tests show no regressions...
>>>>
>>>> Let's shoot for a T&R this (east coast) evening... how does
>>>> that sound?
>>>
>>>
>>> +1 & thanks
>>
>> Sorry to be a buzzkill but I just replied to an April commit related
>> to PR53555 that I'd like some of the resident big brains to consider
>> as it will be new.
>>
>> But I guess it can be done in parallel with the vote since we have
>> been delayed so much and it's got a fair chance to be no worse than
>> 2.4.23.
>>
>> I do not think it is a showstopper but I see a little smoke there that
>> e.g. ylavic or sf may be able to debunk or throw up a bigger flag on.
>>
>
> Yann pointed out that the wakeup enhancement is not in 2.4.x so there
> is no 2.4.x risk here.
>
> --
> Eric Covener
> cove...@gmail.com
