Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 27142 invoked from network); 29 May 2008 21:07:44 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 29 May 2008 21:07:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 6318 invoked by uid 500); 29 May 2008 21:07:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 6250 invoked by uid 500); 29 May 2008 21:07:39 -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 6239 invoked by uid 99); 29 May 2008 21:07:39 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 May 2008 14:07:39 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [88.198.11.6] (HELO eru.sfritsch.de) (88.198.11.6) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 May 2008 21:06:45 +0000 Received: from k.lan ([10.1.1.6]) by eru.sfritsch.de with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1K1pL1-0005FW-U5 for dev@httpd.apache.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 23:07:08 +0200 From: Stefan Fritsch To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: PR42829 (was: 2.2.9 status) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 23:07:07 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <019E26AF-FE2A-4B14-B058-FCE1E7FACD4A@jaguNET.com> <200805292246.29785.sf@sfritsch.de> <52EA7FD5-FC30-49D6-8D2A-14E2629B29E8@jaguNET.com> In-Reply-To: <52EA7FD5-FC30-49D6-8D2A-14E2629B29E8@jaguNET.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805292307.07939.sf@sfritsch.de> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Thursday 29 May 2008, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21137 has > > been in Debian testing and unstable for about 6 months without > > problems. It is not an elegant solution but it works. Considering > > that is is not clear how an elegant solution would look like, > > including this patch might make sense. > > Even if so, we cannot simply put it in 2.2.9. It needs to > be in trunk first, then tested, then proposed for backport > to 2.2.x and then voted on there before backported. Timing-wise, > it is VERY unlikely this will happen in time for 2.2.9. However, > some other prefork fixes I just added to STATUS in hopes of adding > them to 2.2.9... I will bug you again after 2.2.9, then.