Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

Jeff King writes: > I think I'm leaning towards the very first patch I posted, that assumes > 7.11.0 and later. And then hold off on the others for a few years. In > terms of "number of ifdefs removed" we could go further, but I think it > was the first patch that removes a lot of

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 01:18:30PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Thu, 6 Apr 2017, Jeff King wrote: > > > And it's not like people on ancient mission-critical systems get cut > > off. They can still run the version of Git they were running when their > > OS went out of support. > > You

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

Hi Peff, On Thu, 6 Apr 2017, Jeff King wrote: > And it's not like people on ancient mission-critical systems get cut > off. They can still run the version of Git they were running when their > OS went out of support. You keep baiting me, so I'll bite, after resisting the urge for so long. Let

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:43:06PM +0200, Tom G. Christensen wrote: > On 06/04/17 11:21, Jeff King wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:33:37AM +0200, Tom G. Christensen wrote: > > > I don't use the el3 and el4 versions much any more and el5 use will also > > > drop of now as I'm busy converting

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On 06/04/17 11:21, Jeff King wrote: On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:33:37AM +0200, Tom G. Christensen wrote: I don't use the el3 and el4 versions much any more and el5 use will also drop of now as I'm busy converting machines from el5 to el7. Thanks for sharing, that's a really interesting data

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:33:37AM +0200, Tom G. Christensen wrote: > FWIW I maintain freely available updated git packages for RHEL 3, 4, 5, 6 > and 7. > > They can be found here: > https://jupiterrise.com/blog/jrpms/ > > And direct access here: > https://jupiterrise.com/jrpms/ (for

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:53:01AM +, brian m. carlson wrote: > > It would be great to have them on-list, as far as I can tell they were > > never submitted? Is there some time/administrative reason for why > > you're not submitting them? Some of these are many years old, it would > > be

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

brian m. carlson wrote: On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 12:51:38PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Tom G. Christensen wrote: Whoah. So my assumption in that nobody was

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 12:51:38PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Tom G. Christensen > wrote: > Whoah. So my assumption in > > that nobody was compiling this &

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On 05/04/17 12:51, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Tom G. Christensen wrote: Whoah. So my assumption in that nobody was compiling this & thus not reporting failures was

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Tom G. Christensen wrote: > On 04/04/17 04:54, Jeff King wrote: >> >> A nearby thread raised the question of whether we can rely on a version >> of libcurl that contains a particular feature. The version in question >> is curl 7.11.1, which

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On 04/04/17 04:54, Jeff King wrote: A nearby thread raised the question of whether we can rely on a version of libcurl that contains a particular feature. The version in question is curl 7.11.1, which came out in March 2004. My feeling is that this is old enough to stop caring about. Which

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:49:47AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Let's reiterate that we are talking about some #ifdef's here that are a > tiny maintenance burden. That may have a bug here and there, easily fixed. Forget the maintenance cost for a moment. My concern is that we are doing

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

Hi Stefan, On Tue, 4 Apr 2017, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Johannes Schindelin > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 4 Apr 2017, Brandon Williams wrote: > > > >> I'm all for seeing a patch like this applied. I agree that we can't > >> expect the world

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On 04/05, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Brandon, > > On Tue, 4 Apr 2017, Brandon Williams wrote: > > > I'm all for seeing a patch like this applied. I agree that we can't > > expect the world to be running the most up-to-date version of curl but > > we should be able to select some "oldest"

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Brandon, > > On Tue, 4 Apr 2017, Brandon Williams wrote: > >> I'm all for seeing a patch like this applied. I agree that we can't >> expect the world to be running the most up-to-date version of curl but

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

Hi Brandon, On Tue, 4 Apr 2017, Brandon Williams wrote: > I'm all for seeing a patch like this applied. I agree that we can't > expect the world to be running the most up-to-date version of curl but > we should be able to select some "oldest" version we will support which > can be bumped up

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:06:46PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > But a couple of #ifdef's? C'mon, man, we can carry this *without sweat* > > indefinitely ;-) > > I don't really care about applying this patch, but I wouldn't mind > seeing it applied. > > I just wanted to clarify the

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On 04/04, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Johannes Schindelin > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, 4 Apr 2017, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > >> I think it's completely fine to include your patch as-is. At some > >> point we need to

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 4 Apr 2017, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> I think it's completely fine to include your patch as-is. At some >> point we need to pass the burden of dealing with these old software >>

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 10:54:38PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > A nearby thread raised the question of whether we can rely on a version > of libcurl that contains a particular feature. The version in question > is curl 7.11.1, which came out in March 2004. I had a quick look at the 7.11.1 support,

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

Hi, On Tue, 4 Apr 2017, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > I think it's completely fine to include your patch as-is. At some > point we need to pass the burden of dealing with these old software > versions, saying that you should use a <10 year old library isn't > unreasonable. Anyone packaging

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 10:17:51AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Jeff King wrote: >> > My feeling is that this is old enough to stop caring about. Which means >> > we

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 10:17:51AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Jeff King wrote: > > My feeling is that this is old enough to stop caring about. Which means > > we can drop some of the #ifdefs that clutter the HTTP code (and there's > > a

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Jeff King wrote: > My feeling is that this is old enough to stop caring about. Which means > we can drop some of the #ifdefs that clutter the HTTP code (and there's > a patch at the end of this mail dropping support for everything older > than

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 10:54:38PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > >> If we declared 7.16.0 as a cutoff, we could unconditionally define >> USE_CURL_MULTI, which gets rid of quite a few messy ifdefs. > > That version came out 11 years ago. Here's what that patch would look > like (on top of my other

Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 10:54:38PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > If we declared 7.16.0 as a cutoff, we could unconditionally define > USE_CURL_MULTI, which gets rid of quite a few messy ifdefs. That version came out 11 years ago. Here's what that patch would look like (on top of my other one, but

[RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl

A nearby thread raised the question of whether we can rely on a version of libcurl that contains a particular feature. The version in question is curl 7.11.1, which came out in March 2004. My feeling is that this is old enough to stop caring about. Which means we can drop some of the #ifdefs that