> Am 14.04.2018 um 16:51 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri <drugg...@primary.net>:
> This is a pretty valid reason to consider 2.5. However, I'm not convinced 
> trunk has fixed the funky things referred to in this thread either.

Chicken and egg. I am willing to work for a 2.5+ https: configuration approach, 
if the project reaches rough consensus to go for such a release.

What would be the scope for a 2.5+ that committers here feel justifies a 
release and the work to support it? Not a dream feature someone else has to do, 
but something oneself puts effort in?


> -- 
> Daniel Ruggeri
> On April 14, 2018 2:16:04 AM CDT, Stefan Eissing 
> <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote:
>>> Am 13.04.2018 um 16:00 schrieb Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com>:
>>> It annoys me now that the "protocol" argument to "Listen" is really 
>>> quite ill-defined.  "https" is not even really a protocol, more a URL
>>> scheme, and I can't see it documented that enables SSLEngine
>> anywhere.  
>>> We also have Protocols which does something completely different!
>> Rest assured that you are not the only one annoyed by the many
>> quirks und hoops-to-jump-through to make https: work.
>> And, as you observed, any effort to fix things quickly runs into
>> the "2.4.x regression" wall. Because someone out there has a
>> combination
>> of current configs that one never imagines.
>> I think 2.4.x needs to freeze and we need to move on.
>> Cheers, Stefan

Reply via email to