I am very hesitant about adding this with so little review time... I would like to propose that we simply release 2.4.10 with the simple, trivial crash-fixer and allow us to spend more time on the below, in order to ensure it's solid.
I'm -0.99 (for 2.4.x) :) On Jul 15, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Joe Orton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:14:56PM +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Isn't >>> >>> x.is_req = (headers == r->headers_in); >>> >>> in ap_proxy_clear_connection an issue, when only called with the copy of >>> r->headers_in? >> >> Hm, you are right. >> >> Here is a v2 which introduces ap_proxy_clear_connection_ex(), with >> ap_proxy_clear_connection(..., headers) <=> >> ap_proxy_clear_connection_ex(..., headers, headers == r->headers_in) > > OK, great. That works for me with both test cases I have triggering a > 400 now. > > Votes for 2.4.x on that please! > > +1 from me. > > Regards, Joe >
