On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 06:11:50PM +0000, Matt Caswell wrote: > > > On 23/01/18 18:05, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:51:41PM +0000, Matt Caswell wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 23/01/18 17:49, Matt Caswell wrote: > >>> I completed my first pass review of all issues. I still need to look at > >>> PRs. I have put all PRs against a milestone using the following criteria: > >> > >> I have put all *issues* against a milestone not PR!! > > > > Do we still need to review the issues assigned to milestones that > > have already happened (e.g., 1.1.0, post-1.1.0)? > > There no issues against post-1.1.0 (there are PRs - but that will be > fixed when I do the PR review). > > 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 are still supported so issues against those milestones > are still relevant. They are *not* relevant to the 1.1.1 release > timetable though (which is why I started this exercise). Consider an > issues against the 1.1.0 milestone to mean, relevant to the next 1.1.0 > letter release.
That's great if that's the intent, but I don't think that the current application of those tags is consistent with the above description. For example, #1418 is a somewhat abstract question of what it means for acertificate to be self-signed, yet has the 1.0.2 milestone, when (to me) 1.2.0 would seem more appropriate. -Ben _______________________________________________ openssl-project mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project