As long as we bump mmn, we should be OK. On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can we really backport this? > > We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside > the struct. > > Regards > > Rüdiger > > [email protected] wrote: >> Author: rjung >> Date: Thu Sep 4 09:21:16 2014 >> New Revision: 1622429 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1622429 >> Log: >> Propose. >> >> Modified: >> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS >> >> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS?rev=1622429&r1=1622428&r2=1622429&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original) >> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS Thu Sep 4 09:21:16 2014 >> @@ -242,6 +242,20 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: >> 2.4.x patch: trunk works (except for mod_journald which is not part of >> 2.4.x) >> +1: jailletc36 >> >> + * mod_proxy: Increase limits for worker names, routes and >> + worker host names. Make worker name truncation a non-fatal >> + error. >> + mod_slotmem: Increase log level for some originally >> + debug messages. >> + trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1540318 >> + http://svn.apache.org/r1621367 >> + http://svn.apache.org/r1621372 >> + http://svn.apache.org/r1621373 >> + http://svn.apache.org/r1621382 >> + 2.4.x patch: trunk works (adjust CHANGES) for convenience: >> + >> http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/proxy-worker-max-name-2_4.patch >> + +1: rjung >> + >> OTHER PROPOSALS >> >> * A list of further possible backports can be found at: >> >> >> >
