Varnish 3.1 becoming 4.0 instead (?)

Tollef Fog Heen tfheen at
Thu Dec 15 10:47:47 CET 2011

]] Poul-Henning Kamp

> In message <8762hpc1up.fsf at>, Tollef Fog Heen writes
> :
> >> >As long as you can detect whether a 503 is internally generated or not,
> >> >that's fine.
> >> 
> >> That is an interesting idea, but why would that be important ?
> >
> >It's really part of a somewhat larger problem which currently is to
> >figure out why you ended up in vcl_error.
> Right, yes, that's an old wish too.
> So far I have resisted inventing a bunch of internal numbers (7xx?)
> because I fear they would leak into the internet, but suggestions
> are welcome.  It is also not obvious to me how many different values
> we would need to communicate.

I like strings, and we can use a error.reason or error.code or a similar
variable rather than inventing new status codes that, as you point out,
is likely to leak.

> >The distinction isn't particularly important to me, we are in no risk of
> >running out of integers.
> Tell that to the FreeBSD ports people who saw autocrap shit itself when
> FreeBSD went to 10.0 :-)

Ouch. :-)

But now you've fixed it, so we should be good for at least up to 100,
right? ;-)

Tollef Fog Heen
Technical lead, Varnish Software
t: +47 21 98 92 64

More information about the varnish-dev mailing list