Am 17.05.20 um 21:45 schrieb Jonathan Corbet:
On Sat, 16 May 2020 14:27:40 +0200
"Alexander A. Klimov" <grandmas...@al2klimov.de> wrote:
... for security reasons.
No breaking changes as either the HTTP vhost redirects to HTTPS
or both vhosts redirect to the same location
or both serve the same content.
We're getting closer, but...
- There is still too much stuff here. Remember that somebody has to look
at and review this stuff.
OK.
- A quick check shows that a fair number of these links are broken or
redirect to somewhere else. What is the value of adding "https" to a
broken link?
Literally none. Either some vhosts broke since I have created the first
prototype of this or (more likely) I was wrong that checking for no
breaking changes at vhost level is enough.
- Various documents have maintainers who are likely to be interested in
changes and should be copied; that is what the get_maintainer.pl script
is for. If that generates a massive list of recipients, that's a cue
that your patch is too large.
Huh? I *did* run that script (automated) per file and grouped files per
identical set of patch recipients. I.e. this patch should contain only
changes for the recipients I've sent it to.
If your invocation of the script doesn't agree with me, please share the
output and how to reproduce (as if I had just my own patch eMail, the
upstream Git repo and all the tools of course).
Note that I'm not arguing with you, nor not believing you, exactly the
opposite: The more pieces I shall split this stuff into, the less errors
I want to make (and have to correct for every single piece) in the future.
If you really want to push this forward, please:
- narrow down further. Start with, say, Documentation/maintainer and
just do that.
OK.
- Make sure every link you touch actually works. If they don't, don't
just add "https", figure out what the link should be or, if no
applicable link exists, delete them.
OK, I'll switch from vhost level to link level (will take some time),
but I won't touch broken links. IMAO that's a different construction area.
- Justify the changes in the changelog; "for security reasons" is not, by
itself, particularly convincing. What security threat are you
addressing here?
OK.
Then, maybe, we'll have patches that can be reviewed and applied.
Thanks,
jon
