> I believe we were led into the current situation, because our tests don't
completely work *going backwards.* Do the 1.1.0 tests basically work *going
forwards* ?
> It is unclear what you mean by forwards and backwards, but some 1.1.0
tests failed when using a 1.1.1 library. However, the tests that I
read about failing were testing artificial expectations that are only
appropriate for the same library as the tests. The tests can be fixed
to make their expectations more explicit (by e.g. setting the max protocol
version to the largest supported by the corresponding library).
Good point. I meant our 1.1.1 tests don't completely work when linked with
1.1.0 library. I am not surprised about that as I am sure there are all sorts
of hidden assumptions in the 1.1.1 tests. Now it seems to turn out that there
are only a couple of assumptions, and that maybe we can fix them. As I said
initially, I don't see that as worth any effort, but others are free to
disagree and have.
Do our 1.1.0 tests work when linked against the 1.1.1 library? Even then,
there might be some failures because some of those tests probably say "pick any
protocol" and they were written at a time when 1.3 was not available so might
explicitly test, for example, that "any protocol" meant "got 1.2" It would be
interesting to test 1.1.0 against the 1.1.1 library, and then analyze the
failures and see which, if any, indicate bugs in the 1.1.1 compatibility.
Again, to repeat myself, we have datapoints that 1.1.0 programs can use 1.1.1
library with no problems. We do not have any datapoints that typical 1.1.0
programs fail when using 1.1.1 library.
_______________________________________________
openssl-project mailing list
[email protected]
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
