httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1808855 [2/2] - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: ./ CHANGES STATUS docs/manual/ docs/manual/mod/mod_proxy.xml modules/http2/ modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c modules/proxy/mod_proxy_balancer.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
Date Thu, 12 Oct 2017 20:30:49 GMT
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:42 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
> >> On Sep 19, 2017 05:17, <jim@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
> >> URL:
> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/
> modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c?rev=1808855&r1=1808854&r2=1808855&view=diff
> >> ============================================================
> ==================
> >> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (original)
> >> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c Tue Sep 19
> 10:17:40
> >> 2017
> >> @@ -103,7 +103,8 @@ static const char *set_worker_param(apr_
> >>          /* Normalized load factor. Used with BalancerMember,
> >>           * it is a number between 1 and 100.
> >>           */
> >> -        ival = atoi(val);
> >> +        double fval = atof(val);
> >> +        ival = fval * 100.0;
> >>          if (ival < 1 || ival > 100)
> >>              return "LoadFactor must be a number between 1..100";
> >>          worker->s->lbfactor = ival;
> >>
> >>
> >> As this patch was obviously never tested by a single reviewer, my
> >> inclination is to revert this non-feature regression, in order to tag a
> >> 2.4.29 tomorrow a.m., Windows and OS/X 10.13 ready with the many small
> fixes
> >> already committed. Then, let this feature be reintroduced when working,
> with
> >> some testing, along with many other enhancements proposed right now but
> all
> >> potentially disruptive, as a 2.4.30 to follow soon after a .29 stability
> >> release.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >
> > Or apply the same thing as r1805206 for the balancer_manager case
> > (which I tested...).
> > Looks like a serious regression which shouldn't skip a release IMHO,
> > can't 2.4.29 wait a bit (if ever, such small fix could be voted quite
> > quickly)?
>
> Hmm, actually this backport was missing r1805195, I noticed for
> r1805190 but not this one...
>

Sigh... this is why I suggested rolling it away to get one good release out.
Then integrate. Thank you for pointing out the fix (is) on trunk/.

Since folks are provisioning and breaking their 2.4.27 servers as we are
chatting back and forth, it seems like sharing a 2.4.29 with them sooner
rather than later would be helpful. That's why I propose to tag tomorrow,
and kick off next week with a stable release.

Your effort to gather a vote on the missing patch by morning, that's fine
by me too. Simply expect we should offer something without regressions.

If anyone is building on the new OS/X, please pause to upvote Jim's
proposed maintainer-mode fix under the SHOWSTOPPERS section.
I believe he can simply commit that to 2.4.x as an OS-specific CTR
change. But since I can't validate except by observation, I'm not feeling
right about applying the change myself absent 3 votes. It would be good
to help both Windows and OS/X builders this cycle.

Mime
View raw message