Dridi Boukelmoune

Thanks a lot @slimhazard!

I was about to merge, and decided I would try to add VTC coverage with the help of @nigoroll's synthetic logging feature from varnishtest.

Thanks to @nigoroll's amazing `vtc.vsl_replay()` helper I was able to add proper coverage, and found that I was going to introduce a regression when `-b -c` options are present but...

bugwash: - move to `contrib/varnishstatdiff` - install with `./configure --with-contrib`

Rebased against master and updated to skip the test if `diff(1)` is missing (see f89e900fa2f35ec04605c3245e2ea48e43f721d9).

It seems that the reason why it didn't work was because I was relying on unspecified behavior. I used a for loop over an array and the iteration order is...

The answer is no, even minor bumps in VCL can break (which is arguably fine) to the extent that it affects includes as well (which has been my complaint for...

I'd rather we have 4.1 as the actual version of the VCL, and 4.0 as the effective version to allow 4.0-only code.

Bugwash consensus: I will attempt a patch and we can resume the discussion on whether we want this or not.

Would an explicit syntax change be an acceptable compromise? ``` varnishtest "include 4.0 from 4.1" shell { cat ${tmpdir}/inc.vcl vcl 4.0; sub vcl_recv { set req.esi = false; } EOF...