As with my comments to Jim on OS/X compatibility, is a new vote for a previously approved commit even necessary? Unless this commit was not profered for the backport wasn't originally offered, it seems you can simply commit to right the backport submitted.
On Oct 12, 2017 14:30, "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... >
