On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 08:03 +0000, Salz, Rich wrote: > > > And the *only* justification for the fact that bug continues to exist — and > > in > > fact we introduced a *new* bug in OpenSSL 1.1 instead of fixing it — is for > > backward compatibility with older releases. > > > > So how can we be so sanguine about the above failure report? > > Because backward compatibility is very important.
Absolutely. But Sergey is reporting a *failure* in backwards compatibility, and Viktor's response seemed remarkably sanguine about that... I understand "let's not fix the bugs because backwards compatibility", although I wish we'd done it without introducing a *new* bug in the process. But RT#4697 makes it look like we lost backward compatibility *anyway*, but *without* fixing it to do the right thing. Giving us the worst of both worlds :) -- dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
