On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:20:20PM +0000, Matt Caswell wrote: > > > On 23/01/18 20:55, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 06:11:50PM +0000, Matt Caswell wrote: > >> > >> > >> 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. > > That *is* the intent. What I've done here is *triage* - spending a few > minutes on each one to assess the correct milestone. It would not > surprise me to learn that, having done that for over 380 issues, we > might have come to a different assessment on a few of them. :-)
Understood. Hopefully the bits I did last week helped with the triage. I mostly was just not sure if this has always been the policy, or if there was a period of time when things were much more haphazard as we first started using github. Going forward I expect that we'll be in better shape. > To be absolutely sure though I just re-reviewed all of those issues > against the 1.0.2 and 1.1.0 milestones (there weren't that many of > them), to make sure I got them right. I made 2 or 3 changes including to > the issue you highlighted (moving it to the "Post 1.1.1" milestone). Thank you; I do appreciate it! > Feel free to make any other adjustments you think might be necessary as > you come across them. Okay. I may try to look at the 1.0.2 and 1.1.0 issues, but really ought to finish up the draft-23 support PR first :) > Although there may be some disagreements on a few of the issues. I am > confident that the milestones as they are currently set are broadly > correct - and a good basis for planning. We should probably revive the release timeline/planning thread now, yes. -Ben _______________________________________________ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project