No... only if the patch is restructured to preserve all existing structure members at their current offsets. New struct members at the end of an existing structure is the definition of a minor mmn bump. If third party module authors allocate ap structs, it is their job to track against mmn minor revs.
Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >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 >>>> >> >
