Forked from River trunk just before 3.0 release.
* Security focused:
o Supports updated modern cyphers, support for vulnerable
cypers removed.
o Reimplementation of serialization, includes input validation
and defensive programming.
o Additiona
How do you envisage the future of this work?
Personally, given the volume of changes outside svn, without any review
or commit messages, I am not sure I would vote for an Apache release
based on this code. Do you have a quorum of PMC members who do feel
comfortable with this process?
On 1/11
I do not have a huge problem with detached development. The work could
always be brought into a branch for review and commentary.
In general, I think the broader question is status quo vs active
development.
I think that there is some consensus around the need for river to evolve,
especially in
Thanks Peter!
It would be useful to see what others have been working on.
Cheers
Zsolt
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Peter Firmstone <
peter.firmst...@zeus.net.au> wrote:
> Forked from River trunk just before 3.0 release.
>
>* Security focused:
>
> o Supports updated modern cyp
rom: Bryan Thompson
Sent: 12/01/2017 02:29:34 am
To:
Subject: Re: Summary of my external work
I do not have a huge problem with detached development. The work could
always be brought into a branch for review and commentary.
In general, I think the broader question is status quo vs active
review and quorum will be possible.
Thanks,
Peter.
Sent from my Samsung device.
Include original message
Original message
From: Patricia Shanahan
Sent: 12/01/2017 02:17:40 am
To: dev@river.apache.org
Subject: Re: Summary of my external work
How do you envisage the future of
: Summary of my external work
I'd like to think the future lies with River, it's mainly directed at solving
existing River issues with security, modularity, jdk9 and IPv6 support among
others.
The commit history is available on github. If River migrates to Git, the
change history can be
:17:40 am
To: dev@river.apache.org
Subject: Re: Summary of my external work
How do you envisage the future of this work?
Personally, given the volume of changes outside svn, without any review
or commit messages, I am not sure I would vote for an Apache release
based on this code. Do you have
7:40 am
To: dev@river.apache.org
Subject: Re: Summary of my external work
How do you envisage the future of this work?
Personally, given the volume of changes outside svn, without any review
or commit messages, I am not sure I would vote for an Apache release
based on this code. Do you have a quo
ginal message
Original message
From: Patricia Shanahan
Sent: 17/01/2017 10:40:49 pm
To: dev@river.apache.org
Subject: Re: Summary of my external work
I think integrating back as you go along would make more sense, but the
real issue is getting more people actively involved in the devel
10 matches
Mail list logo
