From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50547) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1df5IK-0007CD-6h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Aug 2017 10:15:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1df5II-0003J7-VL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Aug 2017 10:15:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:15:16 -0400 From: Jeff Cody Message-ID: <20170808141516.GH1525@localhost.localdomain> References: <20170803163353.19558-1-eblake@redhat.com> <3fdaf7c5-591e-4702-126d-b6013a12a690@redhat.com> <70c58145-ab14-a9b5-69d4-4bf39cc180af@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <70c58145-ab14-a9b5-69d4-4bf39cc180af@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH v3 for-2.10 0/4] improved --version/--help tweaks List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: John Snow , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kwolf@redhat.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org, berrange@redhat.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, mreitz@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 08:50:55AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > On 08/07/2017 07:08 PM, John Snow wrote: > > > > > > On 08/03/2017 12:33 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > >> Not sure if this should go through Kevin's block tree, Paolo's > >> miscellaneous patches, or if I should just do a pull request > >> myself (since patch 4 includes a change to qemu-nbd) > >> > > > > > Nothing to keep the commands from going out of order again, it looks > > like -- can this be added as a comment or otherwise scripted as a > > ./hey_it_looks_like_you_are_about_to_release_qemu.sh script that makes > > sure we've dotted the 'i's and crossed the 't's? > > We don't add subcommands to qemu-img all that frequently; I think a > comment is okay without having to figure out where to script things. > > > > > Lastly, Didn't we fix the certificate issue? (I thought Jeff had) -- and > > even if not, it's still the correct address to send people to IMO. Let > > people report to us if the SSL certificate appears to be broken. > > That can be a followup-patch. > Probably no need for one, really. We force redirect to SSL, so the http:// versions will still end up https://. And to confirm - the SSL certificates are now all in order. The issue on the website I think you were referencing in that commit message is because we still had two URL resources pulling in non-ssl assets (Google fonts, and jquery), so browsers blocked those mixed requests. But that has been updated. -Jeff