Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98352200CB0 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 22:57:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 9689F160BF2; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 20:57:27 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 5EDE5160BE5 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 22:57:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 53071 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jun 2017 20:57:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 53061 invoked by uid 99); 23 Jun 2017 20:57:20 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 20:57:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 004C4C6640 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 20:57:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.101 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id axELJbb0-NIc for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 20:57:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pg0-f44.google.com (mail-pg0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 2FD3E5F572 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 20:57:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id f127so25606352pgc.0 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:57:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+KyXO6qyKCnLRkWUPn2oCybWYJR3f5y7mpd3Wt+zPBw=; b=JyYW2uGL3V8HYHm0/llry7jHokrzKz1kMSIVurKH7anNjvza80A+n6xq8JVEJ7w6e+ RTy5+RWFjs7mjYutsDy3LIB2cyuUsndEsqXiliZq1ucjO+w+CkIecilWVk9D2248Z01K bYnh9ZPBsLIVgnTdgYSv7WF4hr3diJaL+w6MQx6bPzEfY+frCDt63hI7AT63UkGbKmH3 VNv2OfFH3yLITIXJWJY9rcO/Q3zJamdu059DXnshtYldPDLb6vaqyJITXerLDgdGLI9D m37WLnBcs+obZIxM0l//jXfz1T/B1t/jQRkI8nc5Ludu90ZNhEaJLbqoBYsBXXyo+HNe H4og== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+KyXO6qyKCnLRkWUPn2oCybWYJR3f5y7mpd3Wt+zPBw=; b=h2Shyrsb5rgqWRaz3Esr9yC5A9Su7KPCPIPSlV50fNWTjmQB31P/0KrI5PNp7dAUfs aq3wJbkvSBxhzaMH+Swe7T1HyPRqUjxXc/v2E1hQ1uvkhCtbne3saCvuFlgHGzkmeWIt tMTDg/nmmUuZJY2nGecCa+ZboDVvOyGyN3Vzm8yQ9fTOeRJEFFHuldNH+66Yn0Dy6K7J nQZGuw3h4PFl6JDrrXFdHxAVeZLwQBDse98QPHqiLKA/pDTo3cpi0kYGlgShXf2uiABD gk33sOK0jmXhCPp0b4g8QHRjzSz3U7HYHAcHJij3Gq9kB5QHkG1Z9+wthXzBr5VakX9V OmKA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOzV6dyIPyr72wvr4GpveWTMwWo+MB5S2Vp36Vv9Oz/ZQpWHNonp +kPhBYkyjqOBTowkluk= X-Received: by 10.98.76.83 with SMTP id z80mr10103350pfa.87.1498251430104; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (50-39-112-180.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net. [50.39.112.180]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x64sm12272460pfk.20.2017.06.23.13.57.09 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: svn commit: r1799689 - in /httpd/test/framework/trunk/t: conf/proxy.conf.in htdocs/modules/proxy/fcgi/ htdocs/modules/proxy/fcgi/index.php modules/proxy_fcgi.t To: dev@httpd.apache.org References: <20170623175034.4C0C33A0057@svn01-us-west.apache.org> <0253FB0D-3E36-4B3C-80FC-E93F818F2F79@jaguNET.com> From: Jacob Champion Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:57:08 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0253FB0D-3E36-4B3C-80FC-E93F818F2F79@jaguNET.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit archived-at: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 20:57:27 -0000 On 06/23/2017 01:22 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > This is cool. Thx. It's inline with what I was hoping to do. No problem! > I'm curious though Since we never actually *run* php-fpm on the > PHP script, we never see what PHP actually determines are these > parameters, right? So like you said on IRC: the entire point of PHP-FPM mode is to work with PHP as it exists today. But "work" means different things to different people. Some people just want the scripts to *run*; other people need the values of the envvars to remain exactly compatible because they use them within their scripts. So the regression test for a default, unset BackendType doesn't really need to run FPM, because we can't change the envvar values we send by default anyway. (Because that would potentially break, and has already broken, users who are using those values for some other reason.) What we need to check instead is that the unset BackendType behaves exactly as 2.4.20 did, so that no users upgrading from pre-2.4.20 are broken by our latest release. I don't see a need for an FPM mode at moment, because the 2.4.20 behavior that should become the default in 2.4.27 *seemed* to work for the vast majority of people. (I was the person who filed the proxy: prefix bug, and I have a better solution to that now with Eric's ProxyFCGISetEnvIf.) But we shipped FPM mode and I can't very well remove it. If you want FPM mode to do something differently from 2.4.20's behavior, it'd be good to explain what that is and why you want it. (All that said, an integration test with FPM would be great to have on top of the regression test for obvious reasons. It just serves a different purpose.) --Jacob