From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] tests: Adjust the configuration for Apache 2.2 Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 10:27:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20160509142711.GA9552@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <4a15c4e6c35cfb425da568d87e8b20b984e5325c.1462774709.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> <20160509080315.GA14383@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Lars Schneider To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 09 16:38:19 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1azm9a-0004Dp-7q for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 09 May 2016 16:27:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751412AbcEIO1R (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2016 10:27:17 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:36272 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751080AbcEIO1P (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2016 10:27:15 -0400 Received: (qmail 13008 invoked by uid 102); 9 May 2016 14:27:14 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 09 May 2016 10:27:14 -0400 Received: (qmail 19323 invoked by uid 107); 9 May 2016 14:27:27 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 09 May 2016 10:27:27 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 09 May 2016 10:27:11 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 04:03:48PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > How about this: > > As RewriteCond does not allow testing for *non*-matches, we simply > match the desired case first and let it pass by marking the > RewriteRule as '[L]' ("last rule, do not process any other > matching RewriteRules after this"), and then have another > RewriteRule that matches all other cases and lets them fail via > '[F]' ("fail"). > > Good enough? Yep, I think that explains it. Thanks. -Peff