Re: [OpenCA-Devel] 0.9.1-1

[Michael Bell]

Massimiliano Pala wrote:

    1) adding a new sub-revision number, i.e. 0.9.1.1
    2) adding a patch-level letter (as OpenSSL) 0.9.1a
    3) adding (a Michael idea) the -1 to the version,
       i.e. 0.9.1-1
    4) releasing the 0.9.2 without new feature, just
       fixes

I would be in favour of the second option, btw let me know.

I would prefer the recommendation of Kent Soper because the second option can be confusing. Several vendors use a and b to signal alpha and beta releases. -1 was only an idea taken from some old RPMs.

To the guys who wait for a 1.0 - be patient we need at minimum a 0.9.2 and a 0.9.3. The reason is our todo list. If you only read the items for 0.9.2 then you can understand why we don't think about a 1.0.

We hope that the 0.9.2 is fully usable including full HSM-support, logging and accesscontrol. Some other questions:

1. Do you use OpenSSL?
2. Since which version do you use OpenSSL?
3. Did you ever asked the OpenSSL team for 1.0 ;)

Have a nice weekend

Michael
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bell Email (private): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rechenzentrum - Datacenter Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Humboldt-University of Berlin Tel.: +49 (0)30-2093 2482
Unter den Linden 6 Fax: +49 (0)30-2093 2959
10099 Berlin
Germany http://www.openca.org



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
OpenCA-Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openca-devel