From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1B561F626 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 02:13:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229731AbjBXCNq (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:13:46 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39176 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229476AbjBXCNo (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:13:44 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45C6A7286 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:13:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 1878 invoked by uid 109); 24 Feb 2023 02:13:44 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 02:13:44 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 28161 invoked by uid 111); 24 Feb 2023 02:13:43 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:13:43 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:13:42 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/16] http test bug potpourri Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 03:37:05PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I'm actually not sure if the final patch is a good idea or not, but > > certainly all of the fixes leading up to it are worth doing. > > Thanks; this must have been a lot of work. From the "test what the > end users use, or at least something close to it" standpoint, 16/16 > certainly is the right thing to do, I would think. Yeah. My main concern is that we are now using SSL by default in the test suite (or at least trying to; I _think_ we should fail gracefully, but since it works on my system, I don't have any data beyond the fact that CI seems OK with it). I think it's one of those things where we try it and see if anybody screams. -Peff