httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cliff Woolley <>
Subject Re: 2_0_28 tarballs rolled and available
Date Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:51:00 GMT
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> Try this patch on for size (my tree is non-buildable since I synced
> up).  The thing here is that we walk up the request tree when we see
> a non-HTTP_OK code.  So, if we were to save the request_rec* BEFORE
> we walk up the tree, I think we end up with the correct request_rec
> and save some time to boot.

Ahhh, now that's starting to make sense.  :)  I'm reviewing the patch
right now (I still have a version of 2.0.29-dev from this afternoon).  I
tried Sterling's patch and it worked and passed httpd-test, but I think I
like yours better, so I'll try it next and commit it for you if it passes
the tests.

> FWIW, the only thing I see stopping a beta is a segfault.  Anything
> else, I don't give a rats ass about.  =)  And, *especially* if there
> is a workaround.  Because at this point, 2.0.29-dev is
> non-buildable, so I think it is unlikely we can get 2.0.29 out in
> a reasonable time-frame.  Remember, beta != bug-free.  -- justin

Agreed.  And even if it does build (I haven't tried HEAD), there are
still lingering close issues AFAIK.

(I keep having to tell myself this, or I lose sight of it.  beta !=
bugfree, beta != bugfree, beta != bugfree...)  :)


   Cliff Woolley
   Charlottesville, VA

View raw message