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
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
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?
+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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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.
12 matches
Mail list logo