Howdy,
So I figured I would add some unsolicited comment to this.
> > According to Geoff Hutchison:
> > > At 3:47 AM -0700 7/14/01, Joe R. Jah wrote:
> > > > > ssl.4 296 omitted
> > > >
> > > >This is the second most popular patch in the site; I am sure there will be
> > > >scores of requests for it. If you haven't backported the ssl code from
> > > >3.2, I suggest to port this patch to 3.1.6.
> > >
> > > There's absolutely no way anyone wants to backport the HTTPS/SSL code
> > > from 3.2--this would require backporting all the new Transport class
> > > code as well as the modifications to the URL, Retriever, Document,
> > > URLRef, etc. classes.
> > >
> > > As to excluding the ssl.4 patch from 3.1.6, I'd generally give it a
> > > -1. It's not that the patch is bad or buggy. But the code prior to
> > > the 3.2 split (which happened shortly after 3.1.0 came out) is simply
> > > too heavily tied to HTTP.
> > >
> > > I think it's a great patch. But I wouldn't run it on htdig.org--the
> > > base code was changed for 3.2 and patching the duct tape is not a
> > > good idea for a "maintenance release."
> >
> > Based on the problem reports I've seen on the list from ssl.4 users, I'm
> > concerned about it's reliability and thoroughness. I'm also very concerned
> > about its portability, and its dependence on an external library. None of
> > this is the sort of thing we want to inflict on a whole population of users
> > who are depending on a STABLE release. I don't care how popular the ssl.4
> > patch is, it's still used by a small minority of htdig users.
>
> What I mean is to have a patch folder for 3.1.5 patches that are not quite
> up to standards to be included in 3.1.6 release, but they are useful and
> popular enough to be ported, (as patches,) in:
> ftp://ftp.ccsf.org/htdig-patches/3.1.6/
I upgraded the ssl.2 patch to ssl.3 and I can say that its more of a hack
than an real patch and I would not suggest it be included in 3.1.6. I
also wrote the HTTPS/SSL code for 3.2 and can also say that there is no
way I am going to backport this to 3.1.x. As stated above, it would be a
major undertaking.
All this said, once 3.1.6 is released I would be willing to update the
ssl.4 patch to work with the new version ... unless someone else is really
excited about doing this.
Cheers,
Joshua
_______________________________________________
htdig-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
