On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 7:35 PM Josh Soref via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There are a couple of categories of http links... > > There are four categories worth changing: > > * pages that have jittered a bit but are now available as https: > * pages which exist at both http: and https: and can be safely switched > * pages that have jittered a bit and are not available over https: > * pages that are gone and for which the best source is > https://web.archive.org > > And some categories that aren't being changed: > > * links that are required to be http: because they're copied from something > that mandates it (the apache license, xml namespaces, xsl docbook > things?) > * urls that were imaginary (e.g. http://example.com/repo.git) > * links in borrowed code where the http: form still works > > In order: > > * doc: update links to current pages -- I found the current pages for > these, it should be easy enough to verify these / reject them > * doc: switch links to https -- the simplest > * doc: update links for andre-simon.de -- I've split this out, I don't like > the idea of having to download binaries over http. If this were my > project, I'd be tempted to remove the feature or self-host w/ https... > * doc: refer to internet archive -- the original urls are dead, I've found > internet archive date links for them. (There are some in git already, so > this seemed like a very reasonable choice.) > > Changes from v1: > > * Commit messages have been adjusted since v1 > * files were dropped based on feedback from Junio > > Changes from v2: > > * The first two commits have been swapped (favoring more complicated urls > over simply switching to https) > * The archive.org link for atomenabled.org has been dropped, we'll risk > users getting hacked content from an arbitrary MITM instead of taking > archived authenticated content based on the last time their web site was > properly maintained. As stated elsewhere, I'd be fine with using the archived link if the justification presented in the series for using archived links was consistent and mentioned both reasons for changes. But, I think this series is fine to merge down as-is if you don't want to go through the trouble. Especially given how long you've waited. Anyway, I checked through every link in this series; it all looks good to me.
