Re: eCAP configure tests

2008-10-14 Thread Alex Rousskov
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 16:25 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: > Alex Rousskov wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 14:15 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: > > > >>> IMO, if a user explicitly requested feature Foo and Foo cannot be > >>> supported, we should fail rather than ignore the user request. > >> That woul

Re: eCAP configure tests

2008-10-14 Thread Kinkie
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Alex Rousskov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 12:35 +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > >> > > IMO, if a user explicitly requested feature Foo and Foo cannot be >> > > supported, we should fail rather than ignore the user request. >> >> I completely ag

Re: Deprecating URL passwords in cache_object://

2008-10-14 Thread Kinkie
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So I think we ended up: > > 1) change from cache_object:// to http:// > 2) configurable access path > 3) drop authentication suffix (@password) from URL > 4) enforce unique_hostname / visible_hostname / hostname_aliases a

Re: eCAP configure tests

2008-10-14 Thread Amos Jeffries
Alex Rousskov wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 14:15 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: IMO, if a user explicitly requested feature Foo and Foo cannot be supported, we should fail rather than ignore the user request. That would not be a good idea either IMO. Rather have eCAP default on and self-disable n

Re: eCAP configure tests

2008-10-14 Thread Alex Rousskov
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 14:15 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: > > IMO, if a user explicitly requested feature Foo and Foo cannot be > > supported, we should fail rather than ignore the user request. > > That would not be a good idea either IMO. Rather have eCAP default on and > self-disable noisily on

Re: eCAP configure tests

2008-10-14 Thread Alex Rousskov
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 12:35 +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > > > IMO, if a user explicitly requested feature Foo and Foo cannot be > > > supported, we should fail rather than ignore the user request. > > I completely agree with this. The usual behaviour I see that works well > is: > > no-parameter

Re: eCAP configure tests

2008-10-14 Thread Robert Collins
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 14:15 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: > > > > > IMO, if a user explicitly requested feature Foo and Foo cannot be > > supported, we should fail rather than ignore the user request. I completely agree with this. The usual behaviour I see that works well is: no-parameter supplied

Re: Missing bugzilla category

2008-10-14 Thread Amos Jeffries
> tis 2008-10-14 klockan 16:28 +0200 skrev Kinkie: > >> I agree. >> What about restructuring to >> - core > > Instead of core I would use "general", for everything not having a > explicit component. > >> - authentication and authorization >> - docs >> - content adaptation >> - testsuite > > Looks g

Re: eCAP configure tests

2008-10-14 Thread Amos Jeffries
> On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 22:06 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: > >> On the eCAP side. I've found an issue with its configure tests. Seems to >> me that the MSG_ERROR and MSG_FATAL are the wrong way around. > > I did not find MSG_FATAL in autoconf documentation. The code is using > AC_MSG_ERROR and AC_MS

Re: Deprecating URL passwords in cache_object://

2008-10-14 Thread Mark Nottingham
So I think we ended up: 1) change from cache_object:// to http:// 2) configurable access path 3) drop authentication suffix (@password) from URL 4) enforce unique_hostname / visible_hostname / hostname_aliases as the URI authority 5) still pay attention to global_internal_static 6) modify mana

Re: Missing bugzilla category

2008-10-14 Thread Henrik Nordstrom
tis 2008-10-14 klockan 16:28 +0200 skrev Kinkie: > I agree. > What about restructuring to > - core Instead of core I would use "general", for everything not having a explicit component. > - authentication and authorization > - docs > - content adaptation > - testsuite Looks good. Regards Henri

Re: Missing bugzilla category

2008-10-14 Thread Kinkie
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Henrik Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On tis, 2008-10-14 at 12:17 +0200, Kinkie wrote: >> Hi all, >> IMVHO Bugzilla is missing a couple of component specifiers: >> - for the squid project, it misses a possibility of reporting bugs to >> the unit tests sui

Re: eCAP configure tests

2008-10-14 Thread Alex Rousskov
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 22:06 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On the eCAP side. I've found an issue with its configure tests. Seems to > me that the MSG_ERROR and MSG_FATAL are the wrong way around. I did not find MSG_FATAL in autoconf documentation. The code is using AC_MSG_ERROR and AC_MSG_FAILURE

Re: Missing bugzilla category

2008-10-14 Thread Henrik Nordstrom
On tis, 2008-10-14 at 12:17 +0200, Kinkie wrote: > Hi all, > IMVHO Bugzilla is missing a couple of component specifiers: > - for the squid project, it misses a possibility of reporting bugs to > the unit tests suite > - for the website, the missing component is bugzilla itself. > > If there's ag

Missing bugzilla category

2008-10-14 Thread Kinkie
Hi all, IMVHO Bugzilla is missing a couple of component specifiers: - for the squid project, it misses a possibility of reporting bugs to the unit tests suite - for the website, the missing component is bugzilla itself. If there's agreement, could a bugzilla admin add those? Thanks -- /kin

Re: 3.1 default features

2008-10-14 Thread Amos Jeffries
Alex Rousskov wrote: On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 00:56 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: Well, we are on the countdown for 3.1.0.1 19 bugs and dropping. What features are you folks thinking we should turn on by default in 3.1? My votes: * IPv6 * error localization * Null store (already on) * connection pi