Flood 0.4 status? (was: flood 0.4 was never signed for?)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Flood 0.4 status? (was: flood 0.4 was never signed for?)

William A Rowe Jr
What's our position on this? Is it time to declare flood abandoned?

Are there any users of this tool who want to contribute to maintaining it?

Offhand, I expect it does not support TLS/SNI. Nor HTTP/2.

If abandoned, we can simply remove www.a.o/dist/httpd/flood
to resolve Daniel's issue. If not abandoned, regenerating the
tarball from should result in the same file, which can then be
signed.

Thoughts?



On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Daniel Gruno <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> It appears that flood 0.4 (
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpd/flood/ ) was never
> signed by anyone, which should likely be fixed. As this was, AIUI,
> released 8 years ago, I cannot in good conscience sign for it myself.
>
> Either we have someone who was present back then sign for it, or we
> should remove the release, pursuant to our release policy.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flood 0.4 status? (was: flood 0.4 was never signed for?)

Luca Toscano
Hi William,

As far as I can see the project seems abandoned, so in my opinion unless somebody steps up to work on it I'd be in favor of remove it from www.a.o/dist/httpd/flood.

Luca

2017-09-01 18:39 GMT+02:00 William A Rowe Jr <[hidden email]>:
What's our position on this? Is it time to declare flood abandoned?

Are there any users of this tool who want to contribute to maintaining it?

Offhand, I expect it does not support TLS/SNI. Nor HTTP/2.

If abandoned, we can simply remove www.a.o/dist/httpd/flood
to resolve Daniel's issue. If not abandoned, regenerating the
tarball from should result in the same file, which can then be
signed.

Thoughts?



On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Daniel Gruno <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> It appears that flood 0.4 (
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpd/flood/ ) was never
> signed by anyone, which should likely be fixed. As this was, AIUI,
> released 8 years ago, I cannot in good conscience sign for it myself.
>
> Either we have someone who was present back then sign for it, or we
> should remove the release, pursuant to our release policy.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flood 0.4 status? (was: flood 0.4 was never signed for?)

William A Rowe Jr
I know many of you had busy summers and August holidays... just want
to be sure that nobody who wanted to comment has missed discussion
of retiring the Flood subproject.

If we don't reach any other conclusion or interest, we should wind this down
next week in response to Daniel's concern from the Infra team.

The only remaining question is do we (httpd PMC) archive this, or do we
hand the baton off to the Attic for this legacy source code?




On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Luca Toscano <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi William,
>
> As far as I can see the project seems abandoned, so in my opinion unless
> somebody steps up to work on it I'd be in favor of remove it from
> www.a.o/dist/httpd/flood.
>
> Luca
>
>
> 2017-09-01 18:39 GMT+02:00 William A Rowe Jr <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> What's our position on this? Is it time to declare flood abandoned?
>>
>> Are there any users of this tool who want to contribute to maintaining it?
>>
>> Offhand, I expect it does not support TLS/SNI. Nor HTTP/2.
>>
>> If abandoned, we can simply remove www.a.o/dist/httpd/flood
>> to resolve Daniel's issue. If not abandoned, regenerating the
>> tarball from should result in the same file, which can then be
>> signed.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Daniel Gruno <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi folks,
>> >
>> > It appears that flood 0.4 (
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpd/flood/ ) was never
>> > signed by anyone, which should likely be fixed. As this was, AIUI,
>> > released 8 years ago, I cannot in good conscience sign for it myself.
>> >
>> > Either we have someone who was present back then sign for it, or we
>> > should remove the release, pursuant to our release policy.
>> >
>> > With regards,
>> > Daniel.
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flood 0.4 status? (was: flood 0.4 was never signed for?)

Ruediger Pluem


On 09/14/2017 05:48 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> I know many of you had busy summers and August holidays... just want
> to be sure that nobody who wanted to comment has missed discussion
> of retiring the Flood subproject.
>
> If we don't reach any other conclusion or interest, we should wind this down
> next week in response to Daniel's concern from the Infra team.
>
> The only remaining question is do we (httpd PMC) archive this, or do we
> hand the baton off to the Attic for this legacy source code?

Apart from pulling out the non signed artifacts do we need to do something more with
flood if we choose to retire it within our own yard?
Maybe adjusting http://httpd.apache.org/test/flood/ documenting that it is retired?

Regards

RĂ¼diger