You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@httpd.apache.org by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2017/09/01 16:39:38 UTC
[users@httpd] Flood 0.4 status? (was: flood 0.4 was never signed for?)
What's our position on this? Is it time to declare flood abandoned?
Are there any users of this tool who want to contribute to maintaining it?
Offhand, I expect it does not support TLS/SNI. Nor HTTP/2.
If abandoned, we can simply remove www.a.o/dist/httpd/flood
to resolve Daniel's issue. If not abandoned, regenerating the
tarball from should result in the same file, which can then be
signed.
Thoughts?
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> It appears that flood 0.4 (
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpd/flood/ ) was never
> signed by anyone, which should likely be fixed. As this was, AIUI,
> released 8 years ago, I cannot in good conscience sign for it myself.
>
> Either we have someone who was present back then sign for it, or we
> should remove the release, pursuant to our release policy.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Flood 0.4 status? (was: flood 0.4 was never signed for?)
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 09/14/2017 05:48 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> I know many of you had busy summers and August holidays... just want
> to be sure that nobody who wanted to comment has missed discussion
> of retiring the Flood subproject.
>
> If we don't reach any other conclusion or interest, we should wind this down
> next week in response to Daniel's concern from the Infra team.
>
> The only remaining question is do we (httpd PMC) archive this, or do we
> hand the baton off to the Attic for this legacy source code?
Apart from pulling out the non signed artifacts do we need to do something more with
flood if we choose to retire it within our own yard?
Maybe adjusting http://httpd.apache.org/test/flood/ documenting that it is retired?
Regards
Rüdiger
[users@httpd] Fwd: Flood 0.4 status? (was: flood 0.4 was never signed for?)
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Copying users@ in case some of you are Flood subproject users,
please make your voices heard.
Thanks,
Bill
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Flood 0.4 status? (was: flood 0.4 was never signed for?)
To: httpd <de...@httpd.apache.org>
I know many of you had busy summers and August holidays... just want
to be sure that nobody who wanted to comment has missed discussion
of retiring the Flood subproject.
If we don't reach any other conclusion or interest, we should wind this down
next week in response to Daniel's concern from the Infra team.
The only remaining question is do we (httpd PMC) archive this, or do we
hand the baton off to the Attic for this legacy source code?
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Luca Toscano <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> As far as I can see the project seems abandoned, so in my opinion unless
> somebody steps up to work on it I'd be in favor of remove it from
> www.a.o/dist/httpd/flood.
>
> Luca
>
>
> 2017-09-01 18:39 GMT+02:00 William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>:
>>
>> What's our position on this? Is it time to declare flood abandoned?
>>
>> Are there any users of this tool who want to contribute to maintaining it?
>>
>> Offhand, I expect it does not support TLS/SNI. Nor HTTP/2.
>>
>> If abandoned, we can simply remove www.a.o/dist/httpd/flood
>> to resolve Daniel's issue. If not abandoned, regenerating the
>> tarball from should result in the same file, which can then be
>> signed.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi folks,
>> >
>> > It appears that flood 0.4 (
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpd/flood/ ) was never
>> > signed by anyone, which should likely be fixed. As this was, AIUI,
>> > released 8 years ago, I cannot in good conscience sign for it myself.
>> >
>> > Either we have someone who was present back then sign for it, or we
>> > should remove the release, pursuant to our release policy.
>> >
>> > With regards,
>> > Daniel.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Flood 0.4 status? (was: flood 0.4 was never signed for?)
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
I know many of you had busy summers and August holidays... just want
to be sure that nobody who wanted to comment has missed discussion
of retiring the Flood subproject.
If we don't reach any other conclusion or interest, we should wind this down
next week in response to Daniel's concern from the Infra team.
The only remaining question is do we (httpd PMC) archive this, or do we
hand the baton off to the Attic for this legacy source code?
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Luca Toscano <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> As far as I can see the project seems abandoned, so in my opinion unless
> somebody steps up to work on it I'd be in favor of remove it from
> www.a.o/dist/httpd/flood.
>
> Luca
>
>
> 2017-09-01 18:39 GMT+02:00 William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>:
>>
>> What's our position on this? Is it time to declare flood abandoned?
>>
>> Are there any users of this tool who want to contribute to maintaining it?
>>
>> Offhand, I expect it does not support TLS/SNI. Nor HTTP/2.
>>
>> If abandoned, we can simply remove www.a.o/dist/httpd/flood
>> to resolve Daniel's issue. If not abandoned, regenerating the
>> tarball from should result in the same file, which can then be
>> signed.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi folks,
>> >
>> > It appears that flood 0.4 (
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpd/flood/ ) was never
>> > signed by anyone, which should likely be fixed. As this was, AIUI,
>> > released 8 years ago, I cannot in good conscience sign for it myself.
>> >
>> > Either we have someone who was present back then sign for it, or we
>> > should remove the release, pursuant to our release policy.
>> >
>> > With regards,
>> > Daniel.
>
>
Re: Flood 0.4 status? (was: flood 0.4 was never signed for?)
Posted by Luca Toscano <to...@gmail.com>.
Hi William,
As far as I can see the project seems abandoned, so in my opinion unless
somebody steps up to work on it I'd be in favor of remove it from
www.a.o/dist/httpd/flood.
Luca
2017-09-01 18:39 GMT+02:00 William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>:
> What's our position on this? Is it time to declare flood abandoned?
>
> Are there any users of this tool who want to contribute to maintaining it?
>
> Offhand, I expect it does not support TLS/SNI. Nor HTTP/2.
>
> If abandoned, we can simply remove www.a.o/dist/httpd/flood
> to resolve Daniel's issue. If not abandoned, regenerating the
> tarball from should result in the same file, which can then be
> signed.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > It appears that flood 0.4 (
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpd/flood/ ) was never
> > signed by anyone, which should likely be fixed. As this was, AIUI,
> > released 8 years ago, I cannot in good conscience sign for it myself.
> >
> > Either we have someone who was present back then sign for it, or we
> > should remove the release, pursuant to our release policy.
> >
> > With regards,
> > Daniel.
>