Hi,
The current code is just a PoC, I'm working on the server side at the moment
As soon as I have anything worth looking at, I'll share what I have
Best regards,
Peter
On 2025. 07. 01. 10:26, Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
Hi,
Have you started looking at using the new APIs? Any chance you can
share the code?
Cheers,
Daniel
Den mån 30 juni 2025 kl 23:36 skrev Peter Balogh <pe...@svnplus.com>:
Hi,
If it helps, I've just downloaded two repos, one over 4GB without
issue,
both https, windows debug build, serf user-defined-authn branch
Also can I hope to get user-defined-authn in the next release? :)
It's working fine so far for my purposes
Best regards,
Peter
On 2025. 06. 29. 21:03, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 29. 6. 25 09:41, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 27. 6. 25 11:42, Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm very happy to see the rekindled interest in Serf
development and
>>> the
>>> recent work by Brane on the user-defined-authn branch and by
Graham
>>> on the
>>> OpenSSL "certificate by URI" PR. I'm planning on reviewing
those things
>>> during the weekend. When these are merged (and it doesn't only
>>> depend on
>>> me, it is of course a team effort reviewing and merging!) we
should
>>> start
>>> thinking about a new release.
>>>
>>> I don't think it makes sense to backport to 1.3 - they would
add new
>>> APIs
>>> that require a version bump.
>>>
>>> The existing 1.4.x branch was created in 2018 and received a few
>>> backports
>>> the same year but it lacks significant work from trunk, for
example
>>> Evgeny's OpenSSL3 work in 2022 that led up to the release of
1.3.10.
>>>
>>> I'm proposing to drop the current 1.4.x branch and create a
new one
>>> based
>>> on trunk. Alternative option to drop 1.4.x completely and instead
>>> name the
>>> new release 1.5.
>>
>> I'm inclined towards calling the next release 1.5 and retiring
1.4.x.
>> There are so many changes on trunk that have not been
backported that
>> it would amount to the same thing -- a wholesale merge from trunk.
>> Gathering all the backport proposals into STATUS and then
voting on
>> each one would take longer than validating that trunk is stable.
>>
>> I've been testing serf-trunk with subversion-trunk and all seems
>> fine. There are new features that Subversion doesn't use
>> (specifically, the OCSP stuff for validating certificates -- but,
>> AFAIK, that's still live somewhere else). Whether or not they pick
>> this up is really not a question we have to solve before releasing.
>
> I take that back. I just tried a checkout of the Subversion repo
with
> serf-trunk via HTTPS. Crashes in SSL_CTX_new(), with OpenSSL 3.5.0,
> works fine over HTTP. This is not cool. I hope I didn't introduce a
> fine bug with some of my recent changes.
>
> Ah well. This all goes towards stabilising trunk.
>
> -- Brane
>
