Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-05-01 Thread Eric Covener
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > Le 02/03/2017 à 15:27, Jim Jagielski a écrit : >> >> Should we start thinking about having a release this month? >> >>> On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> >>> Would be

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-05-01 Thread Christophe JAILLET
Le 02/03/2017 à 15:27, Jim Jagielski a écrit : Should we start thinking about having a release this month? On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Would be nice, I think, to start discussion on a T of 2.4.26 and to open the doors to who wants to RM. Note, that if

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-03-18 Thread Eric Covener
Apparently unscathed / unattempted. https://twitter.com/zh4ck/status/843036999569346560 On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Should we start thinking about having a release this month?

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-03-02 Thread Stefan Eissing
+1 > Am 02.03.2017 um 16:48 schrieb Jim Jagielski : > > Right... I was thinking the latter half of the month > >> On Mar 2, 2017, at 9:31 AM, Eric Covener wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> Should we

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-03-02 Thread Jim Jagielski
Right... I was thinking the latter half of the month > On Mar 2, 2017, at 9:31 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Should we start thinking about having a release this month? >> >>> On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:25

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-03-02 Thread Eric Covener
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Should we start thinking about having a release this month? > >> On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> Would be nice, I think, to start discussion on a T of 2.4.26 and >> to open the

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-03-02 Thread Jim Jagielski
Should we start thinking about having a release this month? > On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Would be nice, I think, to start discussion on a T of 2.4.26 and > to open the doors to who wants to RM. Note, that if *nobody* > offers to RM, I will... and no

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-02-17 Thread Jim Jagielski
All IMHO: > On Feb 16, 2017, at 6:46 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > With the passing of OpenSSL 1.0.1, is OpenSSL 1.1.0 on our radar for the next > release? Depends on the status of the patch support... > > I'm not clear how that merge branch is intended to be used,

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-02-17 Thread Luca Toscano
My personal wishlist: 1) Openssl 1.1.x support, a lot of people are asking for it in various support channels and it seems important to catch up with others project that already support it :) 2) Yann's work on mpm-event to remove the unnecessary 100ms of polling even when idling. I am really

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-02-17 Thread Stefan Eissing
Also interested in the state of the openssl 1.1.0 support. Having it in the next release would be great. OpenSSL has promised TLS 1.3 beginning of April as a drop in against the 1.1.0 ABI - which remains to be seem if that works, but would be nice to be ready for it. > Am 17.02.2017 um 00:46

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-02-16 Thread William A Rowe Jr
With the passing of OpenSSL 1.0.1, is OpenSSL 1.1.0 on our radar for the next release? I'm not clear how that merge branch is intended to be used, I'm don't understand whether we propose to adopt every feature and API change commit to modules/ssl/* - and why it has been rebased, unless we intend

Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-02-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
Would be nice, I think, to start discussion on a T of 2.4.26 and to open the doors to who wants to RM. Note, that if *nobody* offers to RM, I will... and no matter what, I offer to help whoever wishes to RM.