Re: do we want to keep CentOS 6 builds?

2020-11-15 Thread John Lauro
CentOS 6 isn't EOL until the end of the month, so there is a couple of more weeks left. There is at least one place to pay for support through 2024. ($3/month/server) Might be good to keep for a a bit past EOL, as I know when migrating services sometimes I'll throw a proxy server on the old

Re: [PATCH] remote couple of travis jobs (migrated to github actions), unmark arm64 as allowed to fail

2020-11-15 Thread Илья Шипицин
One of those jobs uses ERR= I keep an eye on them:) will remove them sometimes On Sun, Nov 15, 2020, 11:16 PM Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Ilya, > > Am 11.11.20 um 19:18 schrieb Илья Шипицин: > > Hi, > > > > some travis-ci cleanup. > > > > Ilya > > > > I believe these can be removed as well, can't

Re: [PATCH] remote couple of travis jobs (migrated to github actions), unmark arm64 as allowed to fail

2020-11-15 Thread Tim Düsterhus
Ilya, Am 11.11.20 um 19:18 schrieb Илья Шипицин: > Hi, > > some travis-ci cleanup. > > Ilya > I believe these can be removed as well, can't they? - os: linux if: type == push compiler: clang env: TARGET=linux-glibc LIBRESSL_VERSION=3.1.1 CC=clang-9 name: libressl-3.1.1 -

Re: do we want to keep CentOS 6 builds?

2020-11-15 Thread Lukas Tribus
Hello, On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 at 17:14, Илья Шипицин wrote: > > Hello, > > we still run cirrus-ci builds. > CentOS 6 is EOL. > > should we drop it? I think CentOs6 gives us good feedback about older operating systems that we may not necessarily want to break. The question for me is not so much

Re: do we want to keep CentOS 6 builds?

2020-11-15 Thread Tim Düsterhus
Ilya, Am 15.11.20 um 17:14 schrieb Илья Шипицин: > we still run cirrus-ci builds. > CentOS 6 is EOL. > > should we drop it? > If it's EOL and they did not upgrade the OS then they are either lazy or interesting in "stability". Either way they are probably not going to upgrade HAProxy any

do we want to keep CentOS 6 builds?

2020-11-15 Thread Илья Шипицин
Hello, we still run cirrus-ci builds. CentOS 6 is EOL. should we drop it? Ilya

[PATCH v2] REGTESTS: converter: add url_dec test

2020-11-15 Thread William Dauchy
while looking at `url_dec` implementation I realised there was not yet a simple test to avoid future regressions. This one is testing simple case, including the "+" behaviour depending on the argument passed to `url_dec` Signed-off-by: William Dauchy --- reg-tests/converter/url_dec.vtc | 38

Re: [PATCH] REGTESTS: converter: add url_dec test

2020-11-15 Thread William Dauchy
Hi Tim, thanks for the review. On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 1:50 PM Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Am 15.11.20 um 13:45 schrieb William Dauchy: > > +#REQUIRE_OPTION=OPENSSL > > I don't believe OPENSSL is required. The test passes for me even without > compiling with SSL. true bad copy/paste on my side. >

Re: [PATCH] REGTESTS: converter: add url_dec test

2020-11-15 Thread Tim Düsterhus
William, Am 15.11.20 um 13:45 schrieb William Dauchy: > +#REQUIRE_OPTION=OPENSSL I don't believe OPENSSL is required. The test passes for me even without compiling with SSL. > +client c1 -connect ${h1_fe_sock} { > + txreq -url "/bla+?foo%3Dbar%2B42+42" Maybe add %20 to the string to test

[PATCH] REGTESTS: converter: add url_dec test

2020-11-15 Thread William Dauchy
while looking at `url_dec` implementation I realised there was not yet a simple test to avoid future regressions. This one is testing simple case, including the "+" behaviour depending on the argument passed to `url_dec` Signed-off-by: William Dauchy --- reg-tests/converter/url_dec.vtc | 39