Hi,
I google a bit, it seems not much user encountered a busy timeout issue,
and the old protocol should work in most cases, so I think it's no need to note
in CHANGES?
Next time I will separate commit logic changes and style changes :)
Thanks
--
From: Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 10:49 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r40 - in /httpd/mod_fcgid/trunk/modules/fcgid:
fcgid_bridge.c fcgid_pm_main.c
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:36 AM, p...@apache.org wrote:
Author: pqf
Date: Wed Dec 9 15:36:46 2009
New Revision: 40
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=40view=rev
Log:
Bug fix, Bug 47873 - unreliable coordination between daemon and request
thread for BusyTimeout processing
cool
If you think users may have encountered a problem symptom from the
original protocol, we can note it in CHANGES. I'm really not sure.
Perhaps it would require the user to change some scan interval to a
very large value. (When configured, scan intervals are typically set
to a smaller value.)
BTW, it is quite a challenge to review logic changes which contain
unrelated style changes, so we don't do that. Use a separate commit
with only style changes.
