> -----Original Message----- > From: William A. Rowe Jr. [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net] > Sent: Dienstag, 30. August 2011 19:42 > To: dev@httpd.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.20 tarballs > > On 8/30/2011 12:34 PM, Greg Ames wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:48 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. > <wr...@rowe-clan.net > > <mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net>> wrote: > > > > On 8/30/2011 10:18 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > If we get enough votes by, say, 1:30pm Eastern time > (2hrs), I'll retag > > > and reroll... Otherwise, I'll go ahead w/ releasing 2.2.20. > > > > > > PS: Power and net are bouncing like jumping beans so > I'll check > > > when I can :) > > > > It seems this could actually break resume requests for > .iso images, > > for example, so it seems prudent to reroll. > > > > > > can you elaborate on how this could cause breakage please? > we have to retest if we reroll. > > Nevermind, the commit is a noop, any bug still exists, we > should just continue > with this package. If the brigade must be split at 5Gb, it > will fail with or > without this patch.
It will not fail, as we know that the parameter we pass to apr_bucket_split is within the limits of apr_size_t due to earlier checks in apr_uint64_t arithmetic. It is really just silencing a compiler warning. Regards Rüdiger
