Hi Fred!
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 05:33:01PM +0200, Frederic Lecaille wrote:
> The patch attached to this mail fixes this major bug.
Applied, thanks!
> Note that all such added lines 'if (kw->skip == -1)' may be removed,
> but I am not sure it is a good thing.
I think we'll be able to simplify s
Hello Willy,
On 04/15/2017 04:43 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 02:24:41PM +0200, Michal wrote:
Hi,
Maybe my email wasn't nice enough, but breaking compilation
You were the first one to experience the build breakage, it worked for
most of us, but you didn't even give the sma
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 02:24:41PM +0200, Michal wrote:
> Hi,
> Maybe my email wasn't nice enough, but breaking compilation
You were the first one to experience the build breakage, it worked for
most of us, but you didn't even give the smallest hints about the error(s)
you met, making it much hard
Hi,
I didn't want to continue this discussion, but there is one thing that's
totally not true.
2017-04-13 13:50 GMT+02:00 Frederic Lecaille :
> Hello Michal,
>
> On 04/11/2017 04:41 PM, Michał wrote:
>
>> Hello Willy,
>>
>> So I'm fighting with dba97077 made by Frédéric Lécaille - it broke many
>
Hi,
Maybe my email wasn't nice enough, but breaking compilation and simplest
config with server using "source" got me very angry. I didn't send any
reproducer, because even simple
"server name 1.1.1.1:80 source 1.2.3.4 track other"
wasn't parsing.
2017-04-13 15:38 GMT+02:00 Willy Tarreau :
> Hi a
Hi again Michal,
So in the end I already had to revert your latest patch, I should have
been more careful before merging it.
> We need some CI (even if they will only build haproxy) and IMHO people with
> @haproxy.com mails should test their code before posting and merging :(
Thus please let me
Hello Michal,
On 04/11/2017 04:41 PM, Michał wrote:
Hello Willy,
So I'm fighting with dba97077 made by Frédéric Lécaille - it broke many
things.
This patch broke haproxy non-transparent builds. Thanks to Steven
Davidovitz, Pavlos Parissis and David Carlier for having promptly helped
in fixi
Hi Michal,
so I've merged your patch now eventhough I'm still not totally convinced
it's a good idea, I continue to think it will lead to some surprizes.
Regarding your point below :
> E.g. you can't use "source", because that patch broke it. I'm curious how
> many other stuff got broken with th
Hi Michal,
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 04:41:25PM +0200, Michal wrote:
> Hello Willy,
>
> So I'm fighting with dba97077 made by Frédéric Lécaille - it broke many
> things.
That's the principle of distributed development : better get your changes
in shape first so that you don't have to adapt to othe
Hello Willy,
So I'm fighting with dba97077 made by Frédéric Lécaille - it broke many
things.
E.g. you can't use "source", because that patch broke it. I'm curious how
many other stuff got broken with those patches around default-server.
We need some CI (even if they will only build haproxy) and I
Hi Michal,
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:13:01PM +0100, Michal wrote:
> Hello!
> Any news in this topic? Is there anything wrong with my patch?
So I checked it but it still has the problem of propagating absolute
weights, which, as I explained earlier, will break lots of setups. I
tend to think that
Hi Michal,
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:13:01PM +0100, Michal wrote:
> Hello!
> Any news in this topic? Is there anything wrong with my patch?
Not yet, we're just totally drowning under complex bugs resulting in
minor features to be delayed :-/
Thanks,
Willy
Hello!
Any news in this topic? Is there anything wrong with my patch?
Michał
2017-02-04 9:38 GMT+01:00 Michał :
> Hi,
> I checked it and during synthetic tests it worked. I use same
> mechanism as origin agent-check, so it's ready to merge.
>
> It doesn't need to be backported.
>
> 2017-01-27 15
Hi,
I checked it and during synthetic tests it worked. I use same
mechanism as origin agent-check, so it's ready to merge.
It doesn't need to be backported.
2017-01-27 15:38 GMT+01:00 Michał :
> Hello,
>
> So here's patch, which includes all functionalities I think about.
> It propagates the res
Hello,
So here's patch, which includes all functionalities I think about.
It propagates the response for every tracking server without changing it
and without intercepting it. In my opinion we should propagate relative
and absolute weights, because if you use weight=0 server's to offload
checks th
Hi Michal,
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:45:57PM +0100, Micha?? wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We use track's in haproxy to minimize check traffic in some situations and
> after my last patch we are probably going to switch to agent-checks for
> live management of weights and statuses. One problem I see now -
Hello,
We use track's in haproxy to minimize check traffic in some situations and
after my last patch we are probably going to switch to agent-checks for
live management of weights and statuses. One problem I see now - track
don't propagate weight setting to trackers, so if we set agent-check on
t
17 matches
Mail list logo
