Hello, Thanks for OpenSSL first. And again when you can read this.
Matt Caswell <m...@openssl.org> wrote: |On 22/01/15 22:34, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: |> Since noone else seems to say a word. |> I personally didn't understand at all why v1.0.2 when its |> end-of-life is in sight already. | |From my personal point of view I would like all our releases to have |defined up front lifetimes, so that it is clear how long you can expect |to receive support for. With respect to 1.0.2 we're not actually quite |there as we've only said: |Version 1.0.2 will be supported until at least 2016-12-31. My bad! I would have sworn that i had read 2015-12-31 as EOL for v1.0.2 in some message, but apparantly no such statement was posted to @announce, @devel nor @user at all. |Note the "at least". There is a good chance that it will be supported |for significantly longer than that. The reasons for that are discussed |in my recent blog post: |https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2014/12/23/the-new-release-strategy/ I personally would prefer such a posting on -dev@, but great that lynx(1) can be used to read this blog, that's not self-evident. |> Now you have to continue to |> track three active branches. But this is your problem of course. | |Actually its four :-( - 0.9.8, 1.0.0, 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 (and of course we |have master as well). Again see my blog post for a discussion on the |thinking that went into it. As ever these decisions are a compromise |between many competing pressures. Sympathy! After all you are now more with some support by the vcs. [.] |> So why that hastiness, now that OpenSSL gains enough money to pay [.] |Well 1.0.2 was in beta for nearly a year, so I'm not sure I would Of course. Of course. And i think we are all looking forward to see what the future brings. (Myself even starves for documentation [coverage] improvements.) --steffen _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev