Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20040928182920.0297ada8@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:31:47 -0500
To: "Brad Nicholes" <BNICHOLES@novell.com>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: Re: segfault patch for util_ldap (was:Re: cvs commit:
  httpd-2.0 STATUS)
Cc: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <s1599b8e.041@sinclair.provo.novell.com>
References: <s1599b8e.041@sinclair.provo.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 06:12 PM 9/28/2004, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>   I wouldn't consider posting the patch if there was going to be
>another release in a week and a half, but that usually isn't the case
>and a patch for an experimental module usually isn't reason enough to
>roll another release.  Past history shows that it usually takes a
>serious vulnerability to warrant the turnaround we saw with 2.0.52. 

No, it just takes someone motivated.  I hated the thought of 2.0.51
sitting around so I did something about it :)

>There have been a number of users reporting this segfault not only on
>the httpd email lists but on our own Novell news groups as well.  We
>have been making a lot of progress towards stabilizing auth_ldap and
>util_ldap and as a result, I believe that the popularity of these
>modules has increased.  I would really hate to put a damper on this
>forward progress just because we missed a segfault patch by one vote. 
>Simply posting this patch seems like a quick and easy fix until the next
>release.

At the same time, there is ***massive*** progress on mod_cache!  If the
mod_cache folks think we are ready to roll (and they are getting close)
then another release for all these 'experimental' improvements can't
be very far off.

Anyone can RM, it takes 3 +1's and no -1's to release, actually I think
beyond 3 +1's it's simple majority rules.  

Bill