I'd say where we have introduced a regression in the latest release it wouldn't hurt to have a "known issues" page, or similar, which links to commits or other information about how to patch or work around an issue.
I see no reason to make a new release unless we think the issue is sufficiently serious and/or affects large numbers of users. Matt On 04/04/18 09:32, Richard Levitte wrote: > The attached report talks about CPP being required, but that's not the > intention. Rather, this is an unnoticed mistake when cherry-picking > from master to 1.1.0. > > The fix itself is easy (just add a line saying 'CPP=$(CC) -E'), and > that's not what I'm here to talk about, but rather how we want to act > in cases like this. Do we make a new release? Do we create an > official patch? Do we make a link to the corrective github PR? > My own sense is that we should put up something, and it should be > visible on our download page and in our source archives. > > Whatever we decide should become policy. > > Cheers, > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > openssl-project mailing list > [email protected] > https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project > _______________________________________________ openssl-project mailing list [email protected] https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
