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

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

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 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.

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

[Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>]

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 httpd-tests, as well as 'ab' with *very* small
> MaxRequestsPerChild and Max/MinSpare* settings to
> exercise the child fork/reap logic... so far, so good.

Thank you very much for pushing this forward.

> Proposal is to fold them into their respective branches
> (or trunk) in anticipation of additional testing
> and release. Comments?

I haven't got time so far to do any tests, but I only reviewed the code.
But given that and your review and test results I would propose the following:

1. Lets fold httpd-pid-table into trunk now.
2. Give it 72 hours (or less) there and then lets make the backport
   proposals for 2.0.x / 2.2.x.

Regards

Rüdiger

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

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

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
MaxRequestsPerChild and Max/MinSpare* settings to
exercise the child fork/reap logic... so far, so good.
Proposal is to fold them into their respective branches
(or trunk) in anticipation of additional testing
and release. Comments?

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

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

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 done: passes tests.

    http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/httpd-2.2- 
pid-table

Next to come is 2.0, but, IMO, we should start folding these
in, ala 1.3