Re: pid_table (Was: Re: svn commit: r543511 - /httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/src/main/http_main.c)

2007-06-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
Status Update: The pid-table code is: o Applied to 1.3 branch o In httpd-2.0-pid-table branch (branches/2.0.x fork) o In httpd-2.2-pid-table branch (branches/2.2.x fork) o In httpd-pid-table branch (trunk fork) Passes httpd-tests, as well as 'ab' with *very* small

Re: pid_table (Was: Re: svn commit: r543511 - /httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/src/main/http_main.c)

2007-06-16 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 06/16/2007 05:40 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Status Update: The pid-table code is: o Applied to 1.3 branch o In httpd-2.0-pid-table branch (branches/2.0.x fork) o In httpd-2.2-pid-table branch (branches/2.2.x fork) o In httpd-pid-table branch (trunk fork) Passes

Re: pid_table (Was: Re: svn commit: r543511 - /httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/src/main/http_main.c)

2007-06-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Jun 6, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: In the meantime, should I create a 2.2 branch for the 2.2-version of the pid_table code and backport the changes to that? Unless I hear otherwise, I'll likely do that since the backport from 2.2 to 2.0 shouldn't be that involved. Done and

pid_table (Was: Re: svn commit: r543511 - /httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/src/main/http_main.c)

2007-06-06 Thread Jim Jagielski
It looks the the 1.3 pid_table impl is pretty much on target. I've been testing the trunk (2.3.x) version with no issues that I've been able to see, but was wondering how many others are testing... In the meantime, should I create a 2.2 branch for the 2.2-version of the pid_table code and