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
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project

Reply via email to