Re: [VOTE] Release v5.2.0

> On Jan 9, 2015, at 10:01 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote: > > >> On Dec 16, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I've prepared a release candidate for v5.2.0, which is primarily a bug fix >> release over v5.1.x, but also adds a few noteworthy features: >> >> * TLS dynamic

Re: Testing Framework Meetup

+1 On 1/14/15, 2:29 PM, "Brian Geffon" wrote: >Hi All, >Thomas and Josh have made some pretty good progress on a testing >framework, >I think it's probably time for another mini meetup to see where we're at >and get everyone caught up. Would anyone be interested in meeting >somewhere >in sunnyva

Re: [VOTE] Release v5.2.0

+1 from Debian 7 x64, forwarding mode On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Bryan Call wrote: > I meant to say 5.2.x... > > -Bryan > > > > > On Jan 14, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Bryan Call wrote: > > +1 - Been running 5.0.x in production for over a week getting a lot of > traffic and it has been stable. > >

Re: Testing Framework Meetup

I can attend. On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:39 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote: > On Jan 14, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Joshua Blatt > wrote: > > Should we do Vegas instead? > Well, OK, Sunnyvale next week also works for me. Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, lets go to Vegas. +1. — Leif

Re: Testing Framework Meetup

> On Jan 14, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Joshua Blatt > wrote: > > Should we do Vegas instead? > Well, OK, Sunnyvale next week also works for me. Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, lets go to Vegas. +1. — Leif

Re: Testing Framework Meetup

Should we do Vegas instead? Well, OK, Sunnyvale next week also works for me. Thanks, Josh On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 2:47 PM, Omer Shapira wrote: I am interested. Omer On 1/14/15, 2:29 PM, "Brian Geffon" wrote: >Hi All, >Thomas and Josh have made some pretty good progress o

Re: Testing Framework Meetup

I am interested. Omer On 1/14/15, 2:29 PM, "Brian Geffon" wrote: >Hi All, >Thomas and Josh have made some pretty good progress on a testing >framework, >I think it's probably time for another mini meetup to see where we're at >and get everyone caught up. Would anyone be interested in meeting

Testing Framework Meetup

Hi All, Thomas and Josh have made some pretty good progress on a testing framework, I think it's probably time for another mini meetup to see where we're at and get everyone caught up. Would anyone be interested in meeting somewhere in sunnyvale or mountain view early next week? Brian

Re: [VOTE] Release v5.2.0

I meant to say 5.2.x... -Bryan > On Jan 14, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Bryan Call wrote: > > +1 - Been running 5.0.x in production for over a week getting a lot of > traffic and it has been stable. > > -Bryan > > > >> On Jan 9, 2015, at 10:01 PM, Leif Hedstrom > > wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Release v5.2.0

+1 - Been running 5.0.x in production for over a week getting a lot of traffic and it has been stable. -Bryan > On Jan 9, 2015, at 10:01 PM, Leif Hedstrom > wrote: > > >> On Dec 16, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Leif Hedstrom > > wrote: >> >> Hi all, >

[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Allow transparent pass through for SSL...

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/162 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature

[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Allow transparent pass through for SSL...

Github user shinrich commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/162#issuecomment-69966381 As it turns, out the records.config processing already checks that tr-in is set if you are trying to set tr-pass. I filled TS-3293 to track the issue of

[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Allow transparent pass through for SSL...

Github user sudheerv commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/162#issuecomment-69951456 hmm, can it not be used as a bit-map for other kinds of transparency? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear

[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Allow transparent pass through for SSL...

Github user stipa commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/162#issuecomment-69949310 shinrich: added check you've mentioned sudheerv: right, but that one is about inbound transparency: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/blob/master/i

[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Allow transparent pass through for SSL...

Github user sudheerv commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/162#issuecomment-69947824 Isn't there a "NetVConnection::is_transparent" already in the netvc? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear

[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Allow transparent pass through for SSL...

Github user shinrich commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/162#issuecomment-69942861 Looks good to me. Originally concerned that the transparent_passthrough state was being needlessly duplicated, but the HttpSM is not here yet at this point. And

Re: [VOTE] Release v5.2.0

+1. I think this is going to be a good release since we had a longer RC cycle to work out more bugs. On Tue Jan 13 2015 at 5:45:18 PM Adam W. Dace wrote: > +1 Up and running as forward-only proxy on CentOS 7 Linux(VPS). > > Regards, > > Adam > > On Tue Jan 13 2015 at 4:54:08 PM Leif Hedstrom wr

Re: [GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Allow transparent pass through for SSL...

Associated with TS-3292. I'll review and merge later this morning. On 1/14/2015 3:04 AM, stipa wrote: GitHub user stipa opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/162 Allow transparent pass through for SSL port If the parsing of ClientHello fails and f

[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Allow transparent pass through for SSL...

GitHub user stipa opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/162 Allow transparent pass through for SSL port If the parsing of ClientHello fails and first byte does not indicate SSL packet, start a blind tunnel if tr-pass is set. This feature all