On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:56:26 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS Mon Oct 29 13:56:25 2007 @@ -226,6
> +226,17 @@ niq: Doesn't allocating 2^n+1 bytes risk being horribly
> inefficient? Would it make sense to reduce AP_IOBUFSIZE to 8091 so
> buf doesn't go one over a big boundary?
> + jim: The issue is that [chop]
Jim, that's not what I was asking. But anyway, given that the "big"
boundary is 8192 not 8092, my question is moot.
Today have another discussion that would be better aired on-list
than in STATUS: PR42592 and PR41798:
* The first is small and simple, but went through a couple of
iterations. AIUI you're now objecting based on a comment
that was right for r583002, partially invalidated but not
updated in r583803, but only properly fixed in r588791.
That seems to me a tenuous reason for a veto, given that
there is also a proposal to backport r588791.
* The second is more complex. Because of the order of changes
to trunk, it needs the first as prerequisite. To make a separate
change for it would necessarily invalidate the other patch.
There are far too many interlinked combinations here to deal with
individually. So if the veto stands, I think I'll just have to
replace both proposals with a combined patch for both bugs.
Unless someone has a better idea?
--
Nick Kew
Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/
