On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:42 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Sep 19, 2017 05:17, <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c?rev=1808855&r1=1808854&r2=1808855&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (original) > +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c Tue Sep 19 10:17:40 > 2017 > @@ -103,7 +103,8 @@ static const char *set_worker_param(apr_ > /* Normalized load factor. Used with BalancerMember, > * it is a number between 1 and 100. > */ > - ival = atoi(val); > + double fval = atof(val); > + ival = fval * 100.0; > if (ival < 1 || ival > 100) > return "LoadFactor must be a number between 1..100"; > worker->s->lbfactor = ival; > > > As this patch was obviously never tested by a single reviewer, my > inclination is to revert this non-feature regression, in order to tag a > 2.4.29 tomorrow a.m., Windows and OS/X 10.13 ready with the many small fixes > already committed. Then, let this feature be reintroduced when working, with > some testing, along with many other enhancements proposed right now but all > potentially disruptive, as a 2.4.30 to follow soon after a .29 stability > release. > > Thoughts?
Or apply the same thing as r1805206 for the balancer_manager case (which I tested...). Looks like a serious regression which shouldn't skip a release IMHO, can't 2.4.29 wait a bit (if ever, such small fix could be voted quite quickly)?
