Done and done.
> On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:30 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
