Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <200307062319.h66NJ9P26193@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3 STATUS
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:19:05 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: jim@jaguNET.com
In-Reply-To: <n2m-g.1975006.drDecUkQye@news.perlig.de> from
 "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Malo" at Jul 06, 2003 11:51:33 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Malo wrote:
> 
> Both for 1.3 only, IMHO. (backwards compat)
> And before this hangs around just another month, I'll give a +1 on a MMN minor
> bump.
> 
> Folks, please wake up. Do we need a minor bump for 1.3 and 2.x (!) for the
> ap_is_recursion_limit_exceeded function?
> 

I'm more concerned with 1.3, simply because it's so much more
widely used, still, than the 2.x code. Even though not strictly
(and "legally" needed), a think a minor bump for 1.3 is
likely wise and safe to do.

So with:

   1. a minor bump
   2. a somewhat larger default (although none of my testing
      shows 10 too small, but again, I'm worried about the overall
      effects... too many times with the last 1.3 releases we've
      done things that affected too many people) of 15-20
   3. Allowing for a setting of 0 meaning "no limit" or "unlimited"


with all these, and some testing against HEAD (after committed), I
think we're ready for 1.3.28. :) I'll tag and roll as soon as
possible post the above.

-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
             will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson