On 6/8/2010 1:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > -1 veto. This is not the appropriate test for a threaded MPM. > > We have ap_mpm_query for this very purpose, please don't continue > to propagate this broken meme!!!
I'm sorry - I didn't read this patch sufficiently (zeroed straight into the APR_HAVE_THREADS test). However, there seems to be no reason to exclude logging the threads with static builds(!?!) I'm not sure there's any reason to test AP_MPMQ_NOT_SUPPORTED either; this should be a true/false since this query was introduced day one. Reviewing it now. In any case, the presence or absence of a tid in the log, or of one platform or the other shouldn't be blocking an alpha candidate :) If something is broke, we fix in the next alpha.
