On 10 Nov 2016, at 17:10, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:07:14PM +0100, Lars Schneider wrote: > >>> Using Apache in the tests has been the source of frequent portability >>> problems and configuration headaches. I do wonder if we'd be better off >>> using some small special-purpose web server (even a short perl script >>> written around HTTP::Server::Simple or something). >>> >>> On the other hand, testing against Apache approximates a more real-world >>> case, which has value. It might be nice if our tests supported multiple >>> web servers, but that would mean duplicating the config for each >>> manually. >> >> I agree that the real-world Apache test is more valuable and I really want >> to keep the Linux Apache test running. However, I don't think many people >> use macOS as Git web server and therefore I thought it is not worth the >> effort to investigate this problem further. > > IMHO, the value in the http tests is not testing the server side, but > the client side. Without being able to set up a dummy HTTP server, we do > not have any way to exercise the client side of git-over-http at all. > And people on macOS _do_ use that. :) Well, I haven't seen it from that perspective, yet, but I agree :-) To all macOS users on the list: Does anyone execute the tests with GIT_TEST_HTTPD enabled successfully? There would be an alternative way to approach the problem: Someone (GitHub?, BitBucket?, GitLab?, ...) could setup a bunch of webservers with popular configurations and a way to reset a clean test environment. Then the TravisCI client tests could go against these servers. I realize that this idea is probably unrealistic because too much setup and maintenance work would be required. Cheers, Lars