On 20 Jan 2010, at 10:47, [email protected] wrote: > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48359 > > --- Comment #7 from Ruediger Pluem <[email protected]> 2010-01-20 03:47:50 > CET --- > (In reply to comment #6) >> It's a RFC - if your comment represents a +1, I'm happy to revert and commit >> a patch based on his proposal - I was looking for a sanity check from the >> other committers who had reviewed the original fix. > > Yes, this a +1.
-1 for anything that's a candidate for backport to 2.2. Unless someone can convince me otherwise. This raises an issue of what exactly is a subrequest. It's a mix of the parent request and separate (new) fields, and request headers come from the parent. There are probably modules that rely on this (without risking the bug we're dealing with), and they'll break if we change it. Using r->pool is IMHO the lesser of two evils. -- Nick Kew
