> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A. Rowe Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> Sent: Dienstag, 30. August 2011 19:42
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.20 tarballs
>
> On 8/30/2011 12:34 PM, Greg Ames wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:48 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> <wrowe@rowe-clan.net
> > <mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net>> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/30/2011 10:18 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > > If we get enough votes by, say, 1:30pm Eastern time
> (2hrs), I'll retag
> > > and reroll... Otherwise, I'll go ahead w/ releasing 2.2.20.
> > >
> > > PS: Power and net are bouncing like jumping beans so
> I'll check
> > > when I can :)
> >
> > It seems this could actually break resume requests for
> .iso images,
> > for example, so it seems prudent to reroll.
> >
> >
> > can you elaborate on how this could cause breakage please?
> we have to retest if we reroll.
>
> Nevermind, the commit is a noop, any bug still exists, we
> should just continue
> with this package. If the brigade must be split at 5Gb, it
> will fail with or
> without this patch.
It will not fail, as we know that the parameter we pass to apr_bucket_split
is within the limits of apr_size_t due to earlier checks in apr_uint64_t arithmetic.
It is really just silencing a compiler warning.
Regards
Rüdiger
|