Hi, I google a bit, it seems not much user encountered a "busy timeout" issue, and the old protocol should work in most cases, so I think it's no need to note in CHANGES? Next time I will separate commit logic changes and style changes :)
Thanks -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Trawick" <traw...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 10:49 PM To: <dev@httpd.apache.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r888840 - in /httpd/mod_fcgid/trunk/modules/fcgid: fcgid_bridge.c fcgid_pm_main.c > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:36 AM, <p...@apache.org> wrote: >> Author: pqf >> Date: Wed Dec 9 15:36:46 2009 >> New Revision: 888840 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=888840&view=rev >> Log: >> Bug fix, Bug 47873 - unreliable coordination between daemon and request >> thread for BusyTimeout processing > > cool > > If you think users may have encountered a problem symptom from the > original protocol, we can note it in CHANGES. I'm really not sure. > Perhaps it would require the user to change some scan interval to a > very large value. (When configured, scan intervals are typically set > to a smaller value.) > > BTW, it is quite a challenge to review logic changes which contain > unrelated style changes, so we don't do that. Use a separate commit > with only style changes. >