On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Vincent Ladeuil
<email address hidden> wrote:
> An additional note: why do you want to use 0 here ? It makes it harder
> for the clients to connect to it since they should find the port
> first...
I don't. :-) I decided to investigate why the test was failing,
discovered that's the reason. 'bzr serve -h' says it dynamically
allocates a port, and it doesn't (at least on Mac OS X). Hence the
bug. I've got no practical purpose for such a feature. :-) I filed
two bugs so we can track the issues separately (should the test be
fixed independent of supporting 0 as a port number, etc).
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Vincent Ladeuil
<email address hidden> wrote:
> An additional note: why do you want to use 0 here ? It makes it harder
> for the clients to connect to it since they should find the port
> first...
I don't. :-) I decided to investigate why the test was failing,
discovered that's the reason. 'bzr serve -h' says it dynamically
allocates a port, and it doesn't (at least on Mac OS X). Hence the
bug. I've got no practical purpose for such a feature. :-) I filed
two bugs so we can track the issues separately (should the test be
fixed independent of supporting 0 as a port number, etc).
HTH!
-John