On 22/06/18 09:26, Richard Levitte wrote:
> In message <20180622010813.gy4...@kduck.kaduk.org> on Thu, 21 Jun 2018
> 20:08:13 -0500, Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> said:
>
> kaduk> What's still unclear to me in the current scheme is how I'm supposed to
> kaduk> indicate something that is (intentionally) API/ABI-breaking and must be
> kaduk> postponed to the next major release. Bear in mind that we still don't
> know
> kaduk> of the release after 1.1.1 will be such a thing or not...
>
> Argh!
>
> I'm pretty sure I added a label '1.2.0' to do *exactly* that.
> Apparently, not everyone agrees with such indication...
>
We did. I think we lost information when we got rid of it, and I think
it should be restored.
There was a discussion about this recently here:
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/6464
Matt
_______________________________________________
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
