I think, in this case, a minor could be justified. On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote:
> But IMHO that would be a major bump and not a minor one. And we cannot do > major ones in stable branches. > > Regards > > Rüdiger > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:55 >> An: dev@httpd.apache.org >> Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS >> >> I think we can, as long as we bump the MMN... >> >> On Sep 4, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de> wrote: >> >>> Am 04.09.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Ruediger Pluem: >>>> Can we really backport this? >>>> >>>> We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing >> offsets inside the struct. >>> >>> Bummer, I guess you are right. mod_proxy.h seems to be part of the >> public API so we can't backport like this. Will revoke the proposal. >>> >>> We could think about adding new larger name fields to the end of the >> struct and keep a truncated copy in the original struct mebers. But that >> means 3rd-party modules using the old original fields would only see >> part of the names. >>> >>> Rainer >>> >
