From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [217.216.95.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32AD43B7B7D for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 19:25:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790191523; cv=none; b=mRBH40Pf6YFrJfKgJNIAp/AGKyUQQBaRkABk11OVGQGY0ZMB2QJ1E5FMRQp/4utlm3roZ4qfRj71fjuxwH89fkZMbkn/Fo2NzvdKmjXjacQSV597+5ud9y72PwY/CeOplLSy/1LJLmmpyNeF+5mBFvXLRdYZTcEDwWOUu12/qL4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790191523; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RyYiQ7oQzLfvO1k8Q7+i9FoV4e/U/GlgFX4a2sPZKbI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=J4taQp+KlwPr8hVbr3nRq2bXKpfqru8Il3sCL136nqlcgIo/FhHQdEE8hY7QHeQeOvg2fHak2V3A/XeDoc1OUS0HR+czWhfNr7X8UYV0/24kkYZBrCPcXQwTsbh9kbjmpPmTUtKTUuQ3BYzKeOyjogflt9bm2dR9cDAcgApP52o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=eazr4jvi; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="eazr4jvi" Received: (qmail 35468 invoked by uid 106); 23 Sep 2026 19:25:15 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=RyYiQ7oQzLfvO1k8Q7+i9FoV4e/U/GlgFX4a2sPZKbI=; b=eazr4jvisq39HQRtcs3S+IyBDGBUGwQV5WdA0GFzUWzg8vhtfovj/v3MIUThjO02aBgVIhjmj5YmTkUohM0WSRhYqK1dNoSE4W9S9Bn+0WYMhxP2E1jw66Tp9E+ZgF4t5gIc2LnZlm/26kKMuwnSYLTtypHH0Qz5KwgrxqM9r/NNIkhiXd/dAHtD5W/7S3kSXEUa0i7UK75OISAXyADtEPisS1TKvyDTmTFkPtozFaFC0sPfYgoedRhUly3yN9cSqudU4oUy83a9MhYlXNyGPmWYCp10Xs03ym8UpjI/cOG5NzOmCWGlweNhgWKPc2H3qAvInys1nWO557C4xkO/IA== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 19:25:15 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 183057 invoked by uid 111); 23 Sep 2026 19:25:15 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 15:25:15 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 15:25:14 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] ci: work around Debian 12's HTTP/2 authentication failures Message-ID: <20260923192514.GA43344@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20260923164700.GA28538@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260923165348.GA29229@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260923165922.GB29229@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 10:17:05AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > +# Curl 7.88.1 can fail to retry authentication after an early HTTP/2 > > +# response. This was fixed in curl 8.3.0; see > > +# https://github.com/curl/curl/pull/11756. The first affected version is > > +# unknown, so conservatively assume that versions from 7.88.1 up to (but > > +# not including) 8.3.0 are broken. > > Just nitpicking the wording, but if the first affected version is > truly unknown, assuming that versions from 7.88.1 up is *not* a > conservative thing to do at all, is it? > > If 7.88.1 is from an irrelevantly ancient past, I would say that we > should just skip anything older than 8.3.0, but 7.88.1 is from early > 2023 and we cannot do such a simplification. It depends on what bad outcome we are being conservative against. If the bad outcome is skipping the test on a version for which we could reliably use it, then it is conservative to only select known-bad versions. If the bad outcome is somebody running the test and seeing a flaky fail, then yes, the more conservative thing would be extending to skip older unknown versions (potentially up to "forever"). I think you could argue either way (and I am OK with either, or even just matching 7.88.1). -Peff