3 ms·

Did I miss something here around the rationale for forking vs. attempting to contribute this to the official project? Edit: found some more details over on red

Did I miss something here around the rationale for forking vs. attempting to contribute this to the official project? Edit: found some more details over on reddit[0]: I didn't see the existing TLS PR, and I'm not finding it now. Do you have a link? As for why fork and not PR, Salvatore already closed the Transactions PR and said he didn't want Redis to go in that direction. And when searching about SSL/TLS in Redis itself, I found this: https://redis.io/topics/encryption https://redis.io/topics/encryption , read the implementation of spiped (it uses fixed 1k block sizes), then realized that SSL/TLS is the right answer in this situation. Could transactions be a module? I was about halfway through the cluster transaction bits as a module when I hit a collection of "oh wait, I can't even call this entire class of things unless I create new module wrappers for both directions" problems. Then I just added a new .c file, new .h, did the right includes, a make clean && make, and my life was 10x better. Also, this just includes redis-benchmark, redis with SSL/TLS, etc., is still a couple weeks out. I need to get redis-cli > and redis-sentinel speaking SSL/TLS. [0] - https://www.reddit.com/r/redis/comments/8f373k/a_new_redis_fork_with_ssl_transactions/ https://www.reddit.com/r/redis/comments/8f373k/a_new_redis_f...

DrJosiah 8y ago
Other changes that I had been working on weren't going to be merged upstream (already rejected), and though I wasn't going to make any attempts to prevent SSL/TLS from being merge-able (I was actually starting from 4.0.9 for ease of current users, and had moved between 4.0.9 and unstable a couple different times), my code was derived from MIT code, and I can't really re-license someone else's code. This fork announcement was a, "Hey, you can probably use this stuff, but it might not be usable for everyone now. In the future, it might be a materially better solution for some of your problems (transactions). I'd appreciate some sort of vote of confidence if you all think it's cool, or even an 'eff off' if I've somehow pissed in your coffee." With the SSL work in PR #4855, some of the announcement has no real use now, and I've redirected my own efforts in its wake.
- calebio 8y ago
  I appreciate the followup and reply!

DrJosiah 8y ago

Other changes that I had been working on weren't going to be merged upstream (already rejected), and though I wasn't going to make any attempts to prevent SSL/TLS from being merge-able (I was actually starting from 4.0.9 for ease of current users, and had moved between 4.0.9 and unstable a couple different times), my code was derived from MIT code, and I can't really re-license someone else's code. This fork announcement was a, "Hey, you can probably use this stuff, but it might not be usable for everyone now. In the future, it might be a materially better solution for some of your problems (transactions). I'd appreciate some sort of vote of confidence if you all think it's cool, or even an 'eff off' if I've somehow pissed in your coffee." With the SSL work in PR #4855, some of the announcement has no real use now, and I've redirected my own efforts in its wake.

calebio 8y ago
I appreciate the followup and reply!