Re: t/modules/proxy.t failure with 2.1

2004-10-11 Thread Geoffrey Young
Joe Orton wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 09:26:37AM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote: > >>Joe Orton wrote: >> >>>as far as the fact that mod_proxy in HEAD refuses to >>>act as a forward proxy unless "ProxyRequests On" has been configured. >>>So adding "ProxyRequests On" as below fixes the test but

Re: t/modules/proxy.t failure with 2.1

2004-10-11 Thread Joe Orton
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 09:26:37AM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: > > as far as the fact that mod_proxy in HEAD refuses to > > act as a forward proxy unless "ProxyRequests On" has been configured. > > So adding "ProxyRequests On" as below fixes the test but whether this > > should

Re: t/modules/proxy.t failure with 2.1

2004-10-11 Thread Geoffrey Young
Joe Orton wrote: > On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 04:04:16PM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote: > >>hi all... >> >>just FYI, 2.1 is failing t/modules/proxy.t with a 404. I've spent some time >>this afternoon trying to see what (of importance) has changed in between 2.0 >>and HEAD but I can't see where it is

Re: t/modules/proxy.t failure with 2.1

2004-10-11 Thread Joe Orton
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 04:04:16PM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote: > hi all... > > just FYI, 2.1 is failing t/modules/proxy.t with a 404. I've spent some time > this afternoon trying to see what (of importance) has changed in between 2.0 > and HEAD but I can't see where it is at the moment. I track

Re: t/modules/proxy.t failure with 2.1

2004-10-09 Thread Stas Bekman
Joe Orton wrote: On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 10:27:23AM -0400, Stas Bekman wrote: Joe Orton wrote: On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 10:08:21AM -0400, Stas Bekman wrote: And it'd be nice for the failing test to run t/REPORT and include it in the output. W/o it we know almost nothing about what perl and apache

Re: t/modules/proxy.t failure with 2.1

2004-10-08 Thread Joe Orton
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 10:27:23AM -0400, Stas Bekman wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 10:08:21AM -0400, Stas Bekman wrote: > > > >>And it'd be nice for the failing test to run t/REPORT and include it in > >>the output. W/o it we know almost nothing about what perl and apache

Re: t/modules/proxy.t failure with 2.1

2004-10-08 Thread Stas Bekman
Joe Orton wrote: On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 10:08:21AM -0400, Stas Bekman wrote: And it'd be nice for the failing test to run t/REPORT and include it in the output. W/o it we know almost nothing about what perl and apache builds were used. I guessed you'd say that... I've changed the script to appe

Re: t/modules/proxy.t failure with 2.1

2004-10-08 Thread Joe Orton
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 10:08:21AM -0400, Stas Bekman wrote: > And it'd be nice for the failing test to run t/REPORT and include it in > the output. W/o it we know almost nothing about what perl and apache > builds were used. I guessed you'd say that... I've changed the script to append ./t/REPO

Re: t/modules/proxy.t failure with 2.1

2004-10-08 Thread Stas Bekman
Joe Orton wrote: On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 04:04:16PM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote: hi all... just FYI, 2.1 is failing t/modules/proxy.t with a 404. I've spent some time this afternoon trying to see what (of importance) has changed in between 2.0 and HEAD but I can't see where it is at the moment. I

Re: t/modules/proxy.t failure with 2.1

2004-10-08 Thread Geoffrey Young
> I don't know who else is running nightly regression tests here. I have > just synched the results from the builds I started running with > httpd+mod_perl-from-CVS on a few machines here: > > http://www.apache.org/~jorton/regress/mod_perl.html very cool. what are you using to generate that? f

Re: t/modules/proxy.t failure with 2.1

2004-10-08 Thread Joe Orton
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 04:04:16PM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote: > hi all... > > just FYI, 2.1 is failing t/modules/proxy.t with a 404. I've spent some time > this afternoon trying to see what (of importance) has changed in between 2.0 > and HEAD but I can't see where it is at the moment. I don't