On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 5:51 PM Demi Marie Obenour < d...@invisiblethingslab.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 02:25:07PM +0000, George Dunlap wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 8:59 PM Demi Marie Obenour < > > d...@invisiblethingslab.com> wrote: > > > > > Obtaining code over an insecure transport is a terrible idea for > > > blatently obvious reasons. Even for non-executable data, insecure > > > transports are considered deprecated. > > > > > > This patch changes miscellaneous links that are not used by any > > > automated tool. Some of these links are dead anyway. > > > > > > > As I said in response to patch 4, I appreciate the goal and the effort > > here. But I'd rather not replace a working link with a broken link, or a > > broken link with another broken link. > > > > If we want to make this change, I think we're going to have to be > creative > > with how the link replacement is done, as well as in how it's > demonstrated > > to reviewers that the new URLs are valid. > > > > One option, for instance, could be writing a small script that would > check > > the link validity first and only make the change if the link was valid; > and > > then including that script in the commit message. The reviewer could > then > > convince themselves that the script was correct, and give an Ack or R-b > on > > that basis. There are probably other ideas as well. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > -George > > What about breaking the patch up into smaller ones? One could change > all of the xenbits.xen.org links in one patch, since those are known to > support HTTPS. Then keep going for other domains. > That would work for me. -George
