On 1. 7. 25 15:33, Peter Balogh wrote:
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

As a matter of fact, proofs-of-concept are usually worth looking at, if only catch problems sooner. On top of everything else, you're dealing with HTTP semantics, which tends to be tricky.


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
    >

Reply via email to