Re: [Discussion] Limit the scope of 2.4.x patches until 2.4.next is released?

2018-10-18 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:56 AM Rainer Jung wrote: > - The other one goes back to the other big refactoring which allowed to > use SSLProxy* directives in containers, first released in 2.4.32 > this year. It fixes a missing config merge (very small patch). This is > not related to the OpenSSL

Re: [Discussion] Limit the scope of 2.4.x patches until 2.4.next is released?

2018-10-18 Thread Rainer Jung
Am 15.10.2018 um 16:10 schrieb William A Rowe Jr: Like my beg for getting us to the 2.4.35 release tag, I'd like to propose we keep patches to branches/2.4.x/ generally within the scope of straightening out the remaining quirks related to the OpenSSL 1.1.1 API and library behavior changes (and

Re: [Discussion] Limit the scope of 2.4.x patches until 2.4.next is released?

2018-10-17 Thread Daniel Ruggeri
I like the idea. It took a bit of ruminating to get there, but the thought of shipping new features in odds and fixes/stabilizations in evens (or something along those lines) feels comfortable. I would personally prefer a semver release style where we burn minors often-ish, but haven't been

Re: [Discussion] Limit the scope of 2.4.x patches until 2.4.next is released?

2018-10-15 Thread Gregg Smith
On 10/15/2018 7:10 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: Like my beg for getting us to the 2.4.35 release tag, I'd like to propose we keep patches to branches/2.4.x/ generally within the scope of straightening out the remaining quirks related to the OpenSSL 1.1.1 API and library behavior changes (and

[Discussion] Limit the scope of 2.4.x patches until 2.4.next is released?

2018-10-15 Thread William A Rowe Jr
Like my beg for getting us to the 2.4.35 release tag, I'd like to propose we keep patches to branches/2.4.x/ generally within the scope of straightening out the remaining quirks related to the OpenSSL 1.1.1 API and library behavior changes (and similar corrections for any alternate library