Ryan Bloom wrote: >>>>> RELEASE NON-SHOWSTOPPERS BUT WOULD BE REAL NICE TO WRAP THESE UP: >>>>> >>>>>+ >>>>>+ * With AP_MODE_EXHAUSTIVE in the core, it is finally clear to me >>>>>+ how the Perchild MPM should be re-written. It hasn't worked >>>>>+ correctly since filters were added because it wasn't possible to >>>>>+ get the content that had already been written and the socket at >>>>>+ the same time. This mode lets us do that, so the MPM can be >>>>>+ fixed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>-1 on an MPM rewrite until after 2.0 GA is released >>>> >>> >>>Huh!?!?!?!? You can't veto fixing code that doesn't work. >>> >>If you were just proposing a fix, I'd have no objections (well, >>until I saw the code :-) The crucial difference is that you're >>talking about a rewrite of a large amount of code. We've seen >>how badly the code base becomes destabilized after major rewrites. >> > >I don't care how de-stabilized the code base becomes. We have an MPM >that absolutely does not work right now. I have committed a note >explaining that I finally figured out how to solve the bug, and you >tried to veto the whole concept of fixing the module. >
No, I vetoed putting a rewrite of the MPM in the critical path for GA. I have no objection to fixing the bug with a minimal incremental fix now, or rewriting it post-GA, or declaring perchild experimental-use-only (and thus not critical path for GA) and then doing a rewrite at any time. --Brian
