-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 56
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
Conversation
db4802e
to
65c39f4
Compare
There was a problem hiding this 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 👍
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. |
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). |
I had this comment in mind, specifically this part:
The new wording here is basically a soft-deprecation of the crate. |
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. |
That sounds fine to me 👍 . |
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! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thanks djc
Alternative to #140, which IMO is too cautious.
cc @complexspaces
(The screenshot is mostly for showing the way it renders -- review the diff for current text.)