On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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)? > > Hmm, actually this backport was missing r1805195, I noticed for > r1805190 but not this one... > Sigh... this is why I suggested rolling it away to get one good release out. Then integrate. Thank you for pointing out the fix (is) on trunk/. Since folks are provisioning and breaking their 2.4.27 servers as we are chatting back and forth, it seems like sharing a 2.4.29 with them sooner rather than later would be helpful. That's why I propose to tag tomorrow, and kick off next week with a stable release. Your effort to gather a vote on the missing patch by morning, that's fine by me too. Simply expect we should offer something without regressions. If anyone is building on the new OS/X, please pause to upvote Jim's proposed maintainer-mode fix under the SHOWSTOPPERS section. I believe he can simply commit that to 2.4.x as an OS-specific CTR change. But since I can't validate except by observation, I'm not feeling right about applying the change myself absent 3 votes. It would be good to help both Windows and OS/X builders this cycle.
