Revert "Expose the function to generate tls.Config"#1678
Closed
Revert "Expose the function to generate tls.Config"#1678
Conversation
This reverts commit bd0918f. Signed-off-by: Goutham Veeramachaneni <gouthamve@gmail.com>
gouthamve
force-pushed
the
revert-1677-expose-tls-copy
branch
from
463b7a6 to
7ef21b8
Compare
Contributor
|
I appreciate the action, but let's not get overexcited here. Lets give it a week and see what Cure53 say (meeting with them is Monday I believe), and based on the timeline that is apparent then we as a group can figure out what we're going to do. |
Member
|
Fine by me either way. |
Member
|
See my answer in #1677. If I'm mistaken, I'm sorry. But until that is clarified, I don't think there is anything to do here. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Reverts #1677
There is active disagreement about the PR from a prometheus-team member and having this merged in would be violating the governance (we don't have consensus for this technical change). I would rather wait a week and get consensus than merge it in with disagreement.
I agree that this process can get frustrating, but I would rather if we followed our governance.