Agreed all the way around... PS: I *think* we also did this before, when we needed to bump up some *scoreboard* field sizes (to support IPv6) and we still did it w/ a minor bump, iirc.
On Sep 4, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote: > > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Jim Jagielski >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:58 >> An: dev@httpd.apache.org >> Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS >> >> >> On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Can we really backport this? >>> >>> We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets >> inside the struct. >>> >> >> True, but if we bump the mmn, that should cover it. >> >> I know of no-one other than httpd that uses that struct anyway >> and even though it's "public", no one else messes with >> it. > > Then it shouldn't be in a public header, but in a private one. > Not sure how we can fix this now. > >> >> I am a BIG +1 for fixing this. At the very least, we > > I agree that it would be a good fix. I am only worried about breaking our API > promises. > >> should add the backport which makes truncation of >> the name field a non-fatal error. > > +1 to making it a non-fatal error. > > Regards > > Rüdiger
