Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rework README to point users to rustls-platform-verifier #141

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Oct 4, 2024
Merged

Conversation

djc
Copy link
Member

@djc djc commented Oct 3, 2024

Alternative to #140, which IMO is too cautious.

cc @complexspaces

Screenshot 2024-10-03 at 10 36 50

(The screenshot is mostly for showing the way it renders -- review the diff for current text.)

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@cpu cpu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like the fancy markdown rendering of the important note 👍

README.md Show resolved Hide resolved
@complexspaces
Copy link

I'm fine with this as an alternative to my suggested changes! I was hesitant to do it myself since I thought we were not quite ready to make the recommendation cutover but I have no issues with the idea.

@djc
Copy link
Member Author

djc commented Oct 3, 2024

I thought we were not quite ready to make the recommendation cutover

Any particular reason? IMO this note is unlikely to affect existing users much and we already have some adoption (for example in Quinn, and mainline rustup).

@complexspaces
Copy link

complexspaces commented Oct 3, 2024

I had this comment in mind, specifically this part:

Given my experience so far I think it is too early to do anything like this. On Linux and BSDs, there is basically no benefit to using rustls-platform-verifier, and for now the adoption of rustls-platform-verifier doesn't appear to be taking off (for the past 90 days, the platform verifier got 6% of the downloads compared to native-certs).

The new wording here is basically a soft-deprecation of the crate.

@djc
Copy link
Member Author

djc commented Oct 3, 2024

Right. I think the deprecation should be more of a slightly lagging indicator whereas advice from this README seeks to be leading. We've also made some progress since then with the additivity issue.

@complexspaces
Copy link

That sounds fine to me 👍 .

@djc
Copy link
Member Author

djc commented Oct 4, 2024

I've fixed the wording as pointed out by @ctz and split this in more commits to make it clearer why things changed. Please have another look!

Copy link
Member

@cpu cpu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thanks djc

@djc djc added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 4, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 5b716ad Oct 4, 2024
28 checks passed
@djc djc deleted the readme-updates branch October 4, 2024 13:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants