From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1470A20899 for ; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 16:28:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753128AbdHTQ2Y (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:28:24 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:62974 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753101AbdHTQ2X (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:28:23 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23FA7A264B; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:28:22 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=hZZtXxgXtblDFck8RSibOd+89oQ=; b=dgPc57 zlGzgZGrMfeIxuhobn8hq48QtdrurNz5Bs/w2ByxYW4WtFPLkrzfUP7IigxtcE4R lykGl+zlhom/LU1BzbdUCwNwP61XH5/tieO05nYaiFQCUJi5d/jOUjoeLKcLBpY1 K6NIvXZ8LuVmLkGnOHMAsBRut9r3QEpV+GKUE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=D8mnw89+P804l72sH6LVGWQ+X5EQ5BY0 EOtv2zv3f+fl5X7mK/Kc7Tm/wXoLFkzUThZHpljqnn48CAokvMQVaYRDNZJIeFbQ maZHa9BJJ1Dtn66mxCmt/XF5cMrqH/TXkprwhAQmAU+WLfZI+Ta4LZDMNzJtcpMg zHv38N37TXc= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C56A264A; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 676B8A2648; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:28:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: "Tom G. Christensen" , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] http: handle curl with vendor backports References: <030356f8-0472-7400-c9f6-7492788dd2d0@jupiterrise.com> <20170820084725.ce5inn5jzkyor4zk@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 09:28:20 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20170820084725.ce5inn5jzkyor4zk@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Sun, 20 Aug 2017 04:47:25 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 94C99600-85C4-11E7-B5FB-FE4B1A68708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 03:15:06PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> "Tom G. Christensen" writes: >> >> > The curl packages provided by Red Hat for RHEL contain several >> > backports of features from later curl releases. >> > This causes problems with current version based checks in http.c. >> > >> > Here is an overview of the features that have been backported: >> > 7.10.6 (el3) Backports CURLPROTO_* >> > 7.12.1 (el4) Backports CURLPROTO_* >> > 7.15.5 (el5) Backports GSSAPI_DELEGATION_* >> > Backports CURLPROTO_* >> > 7.19.7 (el6) Backports GSSAPI_DELEGATION_* >> > Backports CURL_SSL_VERSION_TLSv1_{0,1,2} >> > 7.29.0 (el7) Backports CURL_SSL_VERSION_TLSv1_{0,1,2} >> > >> > This patch series will update the current version based checks for >> > protocol restriction and GSSAPI delegation control support to ones >> > based on features to properly deal with the above listed backports. >> > The fine grained TLS version support does not seem to be >> > distinguishable via a preprocessor macro so I've left that alone. >> >> Thanks; these feature macros ought to be more dependable, and I >> think this moves things in the right direction (regardless of which >> features we might later pick as mandatory and cut off supports for >> older versions). > > Yes, I agree that these are an improvement regardless. If we follow > through on the cut-off to 7.19.4, then the CURLPROTO ones all go away. > But I don't mind rebasing any cut-off proposal on top of this work. Yeah I came to a similar conclusion and was about asking if you feel the same way that your series should be made on top of Tom's fixes. The aspect of that series I do like the most is to base our decisions on features, not versions, and I also wonder if we can do similar in your "abandon too old ones" series, too. Thanks.