-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.6k
[release/2.8 backport] replace rsc.io/letsencrypt in favour of golang.org/x/crypto #3134
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
Conversation
@dmcgowan @manishtomar PTAL |
We don't have any test automation for Let's encrypt today. How is this being verified on the 2.7 branch? |
@thaJeztah can you rebase this, please? |
4c33cf6
to
3996fd7
Compare
Codecov ReportPatch coverage has no change and project coverage change:
❗ Your organization is not using the GitHub App Integration. As a result you may experience degraded service beginning May 15th. Please install the Github App Integration for your organization. Read more. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## release/2.8 #3134 +/- ##
===============================================
+ Coverage 58.87% 58.89% +0.01%
===============================================
Files 102 102
Lines 7120 7118 -2
===============================================
Hits 4192 4192
+ Misses 2284 2282 -2
Partials 644 644 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
I rebased this one, but per discussion above, if there's risk involved in this change, and with (I think) version v3.0.0 (main branch) starting to take shape, I think it would be ok to close this one and just acknowledge that the current implementation in v2.7.x is broken. |
My concern was more just, was this tested and verified. I don't have any specific concern over risk since it is not in a good shape today anyway |
I'm happy to close this. I think there are few people reporting letsencrypt support on the long overdue 2.7 release, but if we can't make sure this works I say let's chuck it and see if anyone screams. We can always reopen it and pick it up again |
@milosgajdos IIUC, current implementation in 2.7 was broken, so I guess it can't be worse than that, but it'd be good to test it (haven't found time to do so, but if you do have time to give it a spin) |
Could this be merged for another point release? |
@thaJeztah should we close this? Given it was opened against the |
@thaJeztah do you mind closing this? |
Signed-off-by: Tariq Ibrahim <tariq181290@gmail.com> (cherry picked from commit 8f9c809) Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl>
3996fd7
to
d0a332d
Compare
@thaJeztah let's close this |
yup SGTM |
backport of #2926
As per the readme over here, it's recommended to use acme/autocerts.
closes #1976