Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-test-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 84170 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2005 10:55:20 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Sep 2005 10:55:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 104 invoked by uid 500); 27 Sep 2005 10:55:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-test-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 99896 invoked by uid 500); 27 Sep 2005 10:55:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact test-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: test-dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list test-dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 99825 invoked by uid 99); 27 Sep 2005 10:55:16 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 03:55:16 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [82.195.144.76] (HELO loughan.stdlib.net) (82.195.144.76) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 03:55:21 -0700 Received: from colmmacc by loughan.stdlib.net with local (Exim 4.50) id 1EKD6q-0001wh-P3 for test-dev@httpd.apache.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:54:52 +0100 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:54:52 +0100 From: Colm MacCarthaigh To: test-dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: mod_cache brokenness test Message-ID: <20050927105452.GA7228@stdlib.net> Reply-To: colm@stdlib.net References: <20050927095516.GA7033@stdlib.net> <20050927101029.GB27268@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20050927101029.GB27268@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:10:29AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote: > > Is it vaguely right? And can I commit it? > > Some nits but otherwise go ahead, great! > > 1. use - the _default_: is not necessary AFAIK > 2. use just "need 'cache', 'disk_cache'" for the requirements Excellent, even simpler. > But this test is going to fail with current releases, is that right? Yes, and trunk too, it has yet to be fixed anywhere :/ > I aim to keep the tests all passing with each tip-of-branch > 2.0.x/2.2.x/trunk. So an additional requirement: > > need foo, bar, need_min_apache_version('2.3.0') > > would be good. I've added it all, and will commit shortly. I'll get back to working on a fix. -- Colm MacC�rthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net