Re: Odd httpheader=1024 required for Phabricator

2020-02-12 Thread Makarius
On 12/02/2020 17:48, Augie Fackler wrote: > >> Complex software products routinely depend on wrong assumptions. >> >> De-facto we have a situation that Phabricator requires a very old version of >> Mercurial, and thus makes Mercurial look bad. > > Last I knew phabricator was pinning to an

Re: Odd httpheader=1024 required for Phabricator

2020-02-12 Thread Augie Fackler
> On Feb 12, 2020, at 02:24, Makarius wrote: > > On 12/02/2020 07:50, Augie Fackler wrote: >>> >>> A bisection over the hg repository yields the following relevant changeset: >>> >>> changeset: 30563:e118233172fe >>> user:Gregory Szorc >>> date:Mon Nov 28 20:46:42 2016

Re: Odd httpheader=1024 required for Phabricator

2020-02-11 Thread Makarius
On 12/02/2020 07:50, Augie Fackler wrote: >> >> A bisection over the hg repository yields the following relevant changeset: >> >> changeset: 30563:e118233172fe >> user:Gregory Szorc >> date:Mon Nov 28 20:46:42 2016 -0800 >> files: mercurial/wireproto.py

Re: Odd httpheader=1024 required for Phabricator

2020-02-11 Thread Augie Fackler
> On Feb 11, 2020, at 16:32, Makarius wrote: > > On 11/02/2020 03:20, Augie Fackler wrote: >> I guess I'm not sure what's going on here. >> https://www.mercurial-scm.org/repo/hg/rev/5cda0ce05c42 is the revision that >> introduced that, but I'm not sure why you need to do anything /to >>

Re: Odd httpheader=1024 required for Phabricator

2020-02-11 Thread Scott Palmer
> On Feb 11, 2020, at 4:49 PM, Emile Snyder wrote: > >  > >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 1:34 PM Makarius wrote: >> ... >> This patch is BC, but SSH clients shouldn't be using the removed >> capabilities so there should be no impact. >> >> >> What means "BC"? > > I suspect "backwards

Re: Odd httpheader=1024 required for Phabricator

2020-02-11 Thread Emile Snyder
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 1:34 PM Makarius wrote: > ... > This patch is BC, but SSH clients shouldn't be using the removed > capabilities so there should be no impact. > > > What means "BC"? > I suspect "backwards compatible"? ___ Mercurial mailing list

Re: Odd httpheader=1024 required for Phabricator

2020-02-11 Thread Makarius
On 11/02/2020 03:20, Augie Fackler wrote: > I guess I'm not sure what's going on here. > https://www.mercurial-scm.org/repo/hg/rev/5cda0ce05c42 is the revision that > introduced that, but I'm not sure why you need to do anything /to > phabricator/ unless it's trying (poorly) to pretend to be an

Re: Odd httpheader=1024 required for Phabricator

2020-02-10 Thread Augie Fackler
I guess I'm not sure what's going on here. https://www.mercurial-scm.org/repo/hg/rev/5cda0ce05c42 is the revision that introduced that, but I'm not sure why you need to do anything /to phabricator/ unless it's trying (poorly) to pretend to be an hg server. Is it not just blindly proxying the

Odd httpheader=1024 required for Phabricator

2020-02-10 Thread Makarius
Dear Mercurial experts, working on Phabrictor hosting for Mercurial, I have come across an odd problem with https URLs. In contrast to the old hg 2.8.2 of https://admin.phacility.com more recent hg versions require a slightly odd "httpheader=1024" for the capabilities of the command server,