On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 06:52:28PM +0100, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > So can I assume that a backport req to bump-up the field sizes to, at least, > > what is in trunk, would not be vetoed? > > Not by me, +1.
It's not getting a veto from me, but as an FYI I know there is at least one module (mod_cluster) which breaks when proxy_shared_worker is extended, because it has some fixed dependency on sizeof(proxy_shared_worker), e.g. it's used in a memcpy or something. We saw a similar case with mod_wsgi and sizeof(request_rec) a while ago. I think it's always reasonable to extend structs unless we document an explicit ABI guarantee around *not* doing that, so the third-party modules have to deal with this. Regards, Joe
