Re: svn commit: r888840 - in /httpd/mod_fcgid/trunk/modules/fcgid: fcgid_bridge.c fcgid_pm_main.c

[pqf <pq...@mailtech.cn>]

Hi,
    I google a bit, it seems not much user encountered a "busy timeout" issue, and the old protocol should work in most cases, so I think it's no need to note in CHANGES?
    Next time I will separate commit logic changes and style changes :)

Thanks

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jeff Trawick" <tr...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 10:49 PM
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r888840 - in /httpd/mod_fcgid/trunk/modules/fcgid: fcgid_bridge.c fcgid_pm_main.c

> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:36 AM,  <pq...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Author: pqf
>> Date: Wed Dec  9 15:36:46 2009
>> New Revision: 888840
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=888840&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Bug fix,  Bug 47873 -  unreliable coordination between daemon and request thread for BusyTimeout processing
> 
> cool
> 
> If you think users may have encountered a problem symptom from the
> original protocol, we can note it in CHANGES.  I'm really not sure.
> Perhaps it would require the user to change some scan interval to a
> very large value.  (When configured, scan intervals are typically set
> to a smaller value.)
> 
> BTW, it is quite a challenge to review logic changes which contain
> unrelated style changes, so we don't do that.  Use a separate commit
> with only style changes.
>