I'll give it until tomorrow AM... If we have the 3, it'll be folded in. If not, I'm not going to delay.
> On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > 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 >> >
