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,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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 A5BCA1F626 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 03:01:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=XOo/BArS; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229842AbjBXDBU (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Feb 2023 22:01:20 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40442 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229446AbjBXDBT (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Feb 2023 22:01:19 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-x433.google.com (mail-pf1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::433]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DB005943D for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 19:01:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf1-x433.google.com with SMTP id fd25so6301558pfb.1 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 19:01:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=VnFYQqafhXOh+IYwGz7qcoL2wBkgyntW1r2GWz+obd0=; b=XOo/BArSr9hH8GzIc/Zeq9PfxKovZ+/kVXzzH08bn5nHKBsJVFMzyzZrutgi8mdfdP Ur0+Uo4F2QExKizONgKFWhuocK2j7ZxYgsYV7pSHNNsTBcMTY9FtypsDwOckaCzW7byB ZilsUEZ2it09BTTF5d+YEAkfHVvRTcs+nfPCtDTNzWu2F+EaIkEC0vFNwJa+IATi7pq4 Zc2wfUof8uBrhhEsdkav0QzZMiClq29UCrD6xMl5XJDL5N+9Rqrh2V7eVGiK41jDYT7f EdDvzhjIKzmsu79fMEYM90rAqxj3iSxy0nsGN6TwQItla2dk7TVNG44XyrOBfUA/gSlN N+Yw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VnFYQqafhXOh+IYwGz7qcoL2wBkgyntW1r2GWz+obd0=; b=V63ZuuGkKZzdO8EWukRcm+TusU9DbVw8h7t399XJW5t3X/e9AjLQcdy35xR3W/gyMl Dzpu5beUFP8llj7WP5crilhAZcSglIcgdS7zgbJQgIeIcoahkfmzcrLCK389JQZ6JKPX JYHziJaDn7h9dbLUdJlPDWUHoWrA2U8aOmBwNMixuS3kanqei8z7w0MIStcHG7h32mHU mrBdZtRBaciGiiU20FLMH1pktqtTxiRxkWnxMd3LDO5pORBZtnoHklRX5ph1/AByhPXI z6Yz/5gW6SWz5qpP/GTimV0nkzQaSLOYfMs/2m5ij8g6PZDANKp+EN1NQTp6GapoZQEU /jgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKX/jeQJkaRb9yXsfC7/9jcexqbsyXiPfiPLDn1OiDP2psYC5by7 JIZBlfVC9xL5GUtUycGEdvc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+5xbq3+eDJmf2qHXV7tksN2xtQecO87kKA/3DIP4zJ9tZyEtM/s4qeZao9twwcbXKyCP8HDA== X-Received: by 2002:a62:17c6:0:b0:5a8:b6cf:1a74 with SMTP id 189-20020a6217c6000000b005a8b6cf1a74mr12055403pfx.18.1677207675635; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 19:01:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (252.157.168.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.168.157.252]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h3-20020aa786c3000000b005a84de344a6sm5076405pfo.14.2023.02.23.19.01.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 23 Feb 2023 19:01:15 -0800 (PST) Sender: Junio C Hamano From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/16] http test bug potpourri References: Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 19:01:14 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:13:42 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > 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. True. If a platform has TLS/SSL implementation of acceptable quality and if we fail to build with it, that is something we want to learn about and help them make it work anyway, I suspect. Thanks.