Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 2730 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2007 15:55:20 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Jul 2007 15:55:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 34379 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jul 2007 15:54:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 34317 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jul 2007 15:54:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 34298 invoked by uid 99); 19 Jul 2007 15:54:50 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:54:50 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SUBJ_ALL_CAPS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of pulsifer3@comcast.net designates 204.127.200.83 as permitted sender) Received: from [204.127.200.83] (HELO sccrmhc13.comcast.net) (204.127.200.83) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:54:47 -0700 Received: from apt23 (pool-141-154-42-77.bos.east.verizon.net[141.154.42.77]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <200707191554050130099qhle>; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:54:05 +0000 From: "Allen Pulsifer" To: Subject: RE: 2.2.5? Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:54:04 -0400 Message-ID: <006701c7ca1d$08aff4c0$650aa8c0@apt23> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6822 In-Reply-To: <3B21A253728EA247A10A692547A271538DCC2C@EITO-MBX03.internal.vodafone.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2929 Thread-Index: AcfKFAcQcZwsi7C1TYS3GkmHWEDYVwAAtRggAABMsBAAAL5asA== Importance: Normal X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org > Thanks for the pointer but this patch is not even contained > in trunk yet and as far as I remember the patch is "only" an > optimization (compared to a bug that makes a functionality > unusable). So I would guess that it misses the boat for 2.2.5. The patch is not an optimization--it fixes a bug in an optimization. It is true though that the bug and the bug fix only affect performance, not functionality.