Oh, and it's not a regression since, at least, 2.4.34 (at least for me)
> On Oct 11, 2018, at 7:35 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> FWIW, on macOS, both trunk and httpd-2.4 fail on this test:
>
> t/modules/buffer.t .................. 3/12 # Failed test 4 in
> t/modules/buffer.t at line 32
> t/modules/buffer.t .................. 7/12 # Failed test 8 in
> t/modules/buffer.t at line 32 fail #2
> t/modules/buffer.t .................. 11/12 # Failed test 12 in
> t/modules/buffer.t at line 32 fail #3
> t/modules/buffer.t .................. Failed 3/12 subtests
>
>
>> On Oct 11, 2018, at 7:15 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
>> <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote:
>>
>> Do you know if the failure is a regression over 2.4.35?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Rüdiger
>>
>> Von: Marion et Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr>
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Oktober 2018 13:13
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Betreff: re: AW: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.36
>>
>> Waouh!
>>
>>
>>
>> This would mean I've provided a new useful test!
>>
>> (it has been added recently in r1841508)
>>
>>
>>
>> :)
>>
>>
>>
>> I definitely need to document how to generate and use test-coverage data
>> when running the test framework.
>>
>> This helps to spot where new tests are needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> CJ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Message du 11/10/18 10:08
>>> De : "Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group" <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com>
>>> A : "dev@httpd.apache.org" <dev@httpd.apache.org>
>>> Copie à :
>>> Objet : AW: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.36
>>>
>>> Anyone else seeing
>>>
>>> t/modules/buffer.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 12 Failed: 2)
>>> Failed tests: 8, 12
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> I don't see this with trunk on the same machine. Issue seems to be if input
>>> filtering is on on large POSTs.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Rüdiger
>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von: Daniel Ruggeri <drugg...@primary.net>
>>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Oktober 2018 02:27
>>>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>>> Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.36
>>>>
>>>> +1 from me (talking to myself).
>>>>
>>>> Test environment follows. I observe only one failure of the test suite
>>>> (mentioned elsewhere) - it seems only to apply w/ OpenSSL 1.1.1 and H2.
>>>>
>>>> system:
>>>> kernel:
>>>> name: Linux
>>>> release: 3.16.0-4-amd64
>>>> version: #1 SMP Debian 3.16.51-3 (2017-12-13)
>>>> machine: x86_64
>>>>
>>>> libraries:
>>>> openssl: "1.1.1"
>>>> openldap: "2.4.46"
>>>> apr: "1.6.5"
>>>> apr-util: "1.6.1"
>>>> iconv: "1.2.2"
>>>> brotli: "1.0.6"
>>>> nghttp2: "1.34.0"
>>>> zlib: "1.2.11"
>>>> pcre: "8.42"
>>>> libxml2: "2.9.8"
>>>> php: "5.6.38"
>>>> lua: "5.3.5"
>>>> curl: "7.61.1"
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel Ruggeri
>>>>
>>>> On 10/10/2018 2:18 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>>>>> Hi, all;
>>>>> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
>>>>> candidate tarball as 2.4.36:
>>>>> [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
>>>>> [ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
>>>>> [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
>>>>> sha1: e40e7a879b84df860215b8a80f2a535534a1c4b4 *httpd-2.4.36.tar.gz
>>>>> sha256:
>>>>> ef788fb7c814acb2506a8b758a1a3f91f368f97bd4e6db16e98001f468e8e288
>>>>> *httpd-2.4.36.tar.gz
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
