At 11:45 AM 4/1/2002, you wrote: >On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 06:36:58PM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > If it's possible, I would like to get the perchild changes that I am > > working on tonight into 2.0.34. I am tired of the reports that perchild > > doesn't compile. :-) I am hoping to have the whole thing working by > > the end of the day. > >I'm not the RM, so it isn't up to me, but I'd prefer that we didn't >include perchild in this tag/release. If it were more obvious that it >is an experimental piece (by moving it to an experimental directory) >then I'd be fine with any changes regardless of how much exposure the >new changes have had.
MPMs should never exist in modules/. I don't think a 'broken mpm' is any worse than an MPM that doesn't compile at all. But if you want to insist that --with-mpm=perchild yields some sort of "This MPM is experimental -- it is not expected to work at this time" ... that would be fine. But I see no reason not to fold these fixes into 2.0.34 unless they start touching files outside of server/mpm/perchild/ Bill
