Re: Question about bug-source traceability
On 12 Dec 2009, at 01:44, Yonghee Shin wrote: Hi, Thanks for the wonderful product. Can anyone let me know how I can trace the files changed to fix actual bugs and functional enhancements separately? You can't really. Bugzilla is a complete mix of real bugs, enhancement requests, vague reports that may or may not arise from a bug, and complete nonsense that some reporter insists on reopening and we can't be arsed to pay attention to. That's the downside of an open bugzilla for such a widely-used project. The only real indicator you have is where a PR is marked enhancement. Can I think the files with PR numbers in SVN log indicate that the files have changed to fix actual bugs and the files without PR numbers as functional enhancements? The PR numbers in SVN logs give you a record of both bugfixes and functional enhancements that trace back to bugzilla. Is there any possibility that a file has changed but the SVN log does not include PR number? Yes, a change may fix a PR without anyone knowing at the time. Particularly the more vague, unspecified PRs. -- Nick Kew
Re: Failures in SSL tests in test suite
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote: Apparently because of the fix in openssl for the TLS renegotiation issue the following failed tests now pop up in our test suite (trunk and 2.2.x the same): Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail List of Failed --- t/ssl/basicauth.t 3 2 2-3 t/ssl/env.t 30 15 16-30 t/ssl/extlookup.t 2 2 1-2 t/ssl/fakeauth.t 3 2 2-3 t/ssl/pr12355.t 10 10 1-10 t/ssl/pr43738.t 4 4 1-4 t/ssl/proxy.t 172 10 3-7 116-120 t/ssl/require.t 5 2 2 5 t/ssl/varlookup.t 72 72 1-72 t/ssl/verify.t 3 1 2 4 tests and 2 subtests skipped. I picked up almost identical failures on 2.2.14 on OpenSolaris when moving to a dev build with 0.9.8l from a dev build with 0.9.8k. At least a few of those testcases mention renegotiation. As I also picked up another failure that didn't seem to be related, I'll try to find time to perform before/after testing with just the OpenSSL k-l change. It would be helpful to end up with some skip-renegotiation option to skip such tests. Also, when the permanent enable-legacy-renegotiation API is in a released OpenSSL version do we expect to provide access to it from the config as a means for the admin to confirm that whatever server-initiated renegotiation is configured should be allowed?
Re: httpd meetup/hackathon, January?
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Sander Temme scte...@apache.org wrote: On Dec 9, 2009, at 4:53 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote: On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote: Hi Everyone, Over on TraffiicServer, there is rough talk of doing some kind of meetup/hackathon the week of January 27th 2010, in Silicon Valley. Alternative is the week of January 13th -- would this earlier date change the ability of anyone to attend? no difference to me I'd prefer the later time slot. +1. Jan 27th is a possibility for me, but Jan 13th is not. -- justin
