In message <adfadfd5-f6b8-5190-40fb-62e0329e2...@openssl.org> on Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:15:32 +0100, Matt Caswell <m...@openssl.org> said:
> On 25/09/18 14:09, Tim Hudson wrote: > > It would also mean our LTS releases are MAJOR.MINOR - as the PATCH is > > the fixes we will apply - so it isn't part of the LTS designation as such. > > e.g. 5.0.x would be the marker - not 5.0.0 - so 5.0 in shorthand form. > > This is where we disagree. My proposal is that the LTS designation would > be 5 (not 5.0.x or 5.0.0). We would continue to do updates as we have > done except we would have to classify our changes on the LTS branch as > either API affecting (e.g. new accessor) or just a bug fix. If the > former then the new version becomes an update to the MINOR number, > otherwise it is an update to the PATCH number. I *like* the idea of an LTS designation on the major number only. However, the rest leaves me utterly confused. Here, it seems that you would allow a 5.1.0 minor update in the v5 LTS branch, and yet, you say this when responding to my posting: In message <989c8546-78e5-8bae-29d7-c9abf1bf7...@openssl.org> on Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:18:17 +0100, Matt Caswell <m...@openssl.org> said: > On 25/09/18 13:25, Richard Levitte wrote: > > Added accessors is additions to out API, not a change of our existing > > API, let's make that clear. The choice we can make in the scenario is > > to either release 5.2.0 or 6.0.0. In my mind, both are viable, but > > for different reasons. > > Neither seems viable to me. That would mean you have to add all the > features from 5.1.0 into an LTS release. That can't happen. I think I need an example timeline from you, 'cause I can see clearly how you look at it... Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ _______________________________________________ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
