Am 04.09.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
Can we really backport this?
We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside
the struct.
I documented a woraround for the problem of short proxy URLs in BZ53218.
It should be applicable in many cases.
It is based
622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>
> Yeah... I could have *swore* that we allowed this before with
> the scoreboard, but can't for the life of me find it...
> Must be dusty neurons.
>
> Agreed that it breaks ABI to change the struct. :/
>
ones in stable branches.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Rüdiger
> >
> >> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> >> Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
> >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:55
> >> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>
t;>
>> Regards
>>
>> Rüdiger
>>
>>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>>> Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:55
>>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>> Betreff: Re: svn com
he Nachricht-
>> Von: Jim Jagielski
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:58
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>>
>>
>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>
Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>> Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:55
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>>
>> I think we can, as long as we
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Jim Jagielski
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:58
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>
>
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Can we really backport this?
>
> We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside
> the struct.
>
True, but if we bump the mmn, that should cover it.
I know of no-one other than httpd that uses that struct anyw
gt; Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>
> I think we can, as long as we bump the MMN...
>
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> > Am 04.09.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
> >> Can we really backport
I think we can, as long as we bump the MMN...
On Sep 4, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Am 04.09.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
>> Can we really backport this?
>>
>> We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets
>> inside the struct.
>
> Bummer, I guess
As long as we bump mmn, we should be OK.
On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Can we really backport this?
>
> We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside
> the struct.
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>
> rj...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: rjung
>> D
Am 04.09.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
Can we really backport this?
We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside
the struct.
Bummer, I guess you are right. mod_proxy.h seems to be part of the
public API so we can't backport like this. Will revoke the
Can we really backport this?
We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside
the struct.
Regards
Rüdiger
rj...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: rjung
> Date: Thu Sep 4 09:21:16 2014
> New Revision: 1622429
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1622429
> Log:
> Propose.
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
