Re: sslonly and stg

2013-05-02 Thread Patrick Uiterwijk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 02:43:57PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Well, this would apply to everywhere... production as well. I see, but still 301 would be cached too long if we'd change it later on (301 might cache forever in a browser, after all it

Re: sslonly and stg

2013-05-01 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:07:23 +0200 Patrick Uiterwijk wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > Hello, > > I agree to this change, but I would prefer you replace the 301 with a > 302 redirect in case we change anything later on as 301 is cached way > too long for staging purp

Re: sslonly and stg

2013-05-01 Thread seth vidal
On Wed, 1 May 2013 10:50:07 -0600 Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Greetings. > > There's been a long standing issue with sslonly sites and stg. > > When you go to 'http://site.stg.whatever"; you are redirected to > 'https://site.whatever' which is anoying. > > The current sslonly template has: > > <

Re: sslonly and stg

2013-05-01 Thread Patrick Uiterwijk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hello, I agree to this change, but I would prefer you replace the 301 with a 302 redirect in case we change anything later on as 301 is cached way too long for staging purposes. Also, I think you should edit the RewriteRule to say ^/(.*)$, as othe

sslonly and stg

2013-05-01 Thread Kevin Fenzi
Greetings. There's been a long standing issue with sslonly sites and stg. When you go to 'http://site.stg.whatever"; you are redirected to 'https://site.whatever' which is anoying. The current sslonly template has: <% if sslonly -%> Redirect 301 / https://<%= name %>/ <% else -%> So it d