Re: svn commit: r180333 - /httpd/httpd/branches/ssl-fips-dev
--On Monday, June 6, 2005 8:24 PM +0200 Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally I prefer entire tree branches. Agreed. This setup is going to make it difficult to test. -- justin
Re: svn commit: r180333 - /httpd/httpd/branches/ssl-fips-dev
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: wrowe Date: Mon Jun 6 09:22:16 2005 New Revision: 180333 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=180333view=rev Log: Sandbox of httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ for OpenSSL 0.9.7 fips integration development Added: httpd/httpd/branches/ssl-fips-dev/ - copied from r180332, httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ I'm not sure about any policy, but it seems better to me to branch off the whole trunk, not just a subtree (you never know, what needs to be modified finally) ... Opinions? nd -- Gefunden auf einer Webdesigner-Seite: Programmierung in HTML, XML, WML, CGI, FLASH # Andr Malo # http://pub.perlig.de/ #
Re: svn commit: r180333 - /httpd/httpd/branches/ssl-fips-dev
Andr Malo wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: wrowe Date: Mon Jun 6 09:22:16 2005 New Revision: 180333 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=180333view=rev Log: Sandbox of httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ for OpenSSL 0.9.7 fips integration development Added: httpd/httpd/branches/ssl-fips-dev/ - copied from r180332, httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ I'm not sure about any policy, but it seems better to me to branch off the whole trunk, not just a subtree (you never know, what needs to be modified finally) ... Opinions? I agree with nd. -Paul
Re: svn commit: r180333 - /httpd/httpd/branches/ssl-fips-dev
Paul Querna wrote: Andr Malo wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: wrowe Date: Mon Jun 6 09:22:16 2005 New Revision: 180333 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=180333view=rev Log: Sandbox of httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ for OpenSSL 0.9.7 fips integration development Added: httpd/httpd/branches/ssl-fips-dev/ - copied from r180332, httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ I'm not sure about any policy, but it seems better to me to branch off the whole trunk, not just a subtree (you never know, what needs to be modified finally) ... Opinions? I agree with nd. Branching the whole tree is what's normally done. If it turns out you're only actually using a small subset you can switch just that portion of your trunk checkout to the branch, and thus avoid the need to continuously merge all changes into the branch in order to stay up to date, but it's way easier later on if you decide you need to modify something outside that directory if you already have it there on the branch. -garrett
Re: svn commit: r180333 - /httpd/httpd/branches/ssl-fips-dev
At 11:43 AM 6/6/2005, Paul Querna wrote: André Malo wrote: Sandbox of httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ for OpenSSL 0.9.7 fips integration development Added: httpd/httpd/branches/ssl-fips-dev/ - copied from r180332, httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ I'm not sure about any policy, but it seems better to me to branch off the whole trunk, not just a subtree (you never know, what needs to be modified finally) I agree with nd. My thinking was; 98% of the changes will be to modules/ssl code itself. 90% of the remainder are likely to be incidental bug fixes than Ben, I or anyone else working on the tree encounter. The other 10% is autoconf detection. Most autoconf can be localized in modules/ssl, but for the rest of the autoconf issues, they should be no-ops if this code is not adopted. E.g. detecting if libcrypto.so.fips (the signature hash file) exists. Contrawise, most bug fixes to head will be better reviewed if those of us working in this branch pick them up immediately. But if concensus says make this a full tree, I'll be happy to oblige. Because most users in crypto-restricted environments would simply rm -rf modules/ssl --- it's VERY important that all our crypto code resides in that tree. That's the basis for my choice. Bill
Re: svn commit: r180333 - /httpd/httpd/branches/ssl-fips-dev
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: At 11:43 AM 6/6/2005, Paul Querna wrote: André Malo wrote: Sandbox of httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ for OpenSSL 0.9.7 fips integration development Added: httpd/httpd/branches/ssl-fips-dev/ - copied from r180332, httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ I'm not sure about any policy, but it seems better to me to branch off the whole trunk, not just a subtree (you never know, what needs to be modified finally) I agree with nd. My thinking was; 98% of the changes will be to modules/ssl code itself. 90% of the remainder are likely to be incidental bug fixes than Ben, I or anyone else working on the tree encounter. The other 10% is autoconf detection. Most autoconf can be localized in modules/ssl, but for the rest of the autoconf issues, they should be no-ops if this code is not adopted. E.g. detecting if libcrypto.so.fips (the signature hash file) exists. Contrawise, most bug fixes to head will be better reviewed if those of us working in this branch pick them up immediately. But if concensus says make this a full tree, I'll be happy to oblige. Personally I prefer entire tree branches. Sander
