+1 for a release - and soon - and without bundling any more changes. The circumstances justify getting this fix out. But I also think we need to keep improvements that aren't bug fixes out of stable branches.
Tim. On Fri, 27 Mar 2020, 3:12 am Matt Caswell, <m...@openssl.org> wrote: > On 26/03/2020 15:14, Short, Todd wrote: > > This type of API-braking change should be reserved for something like > > 3.0, not a patch release. > > > > Despite it being a "incorrect", it is expected behavior. > > > > Right - but the question now is not whether we should revert it (it has > been reverted) - but whether this should trigger a 1.1.1f release soon? > > Matt > > > -- > > -Todd Short > > // tsh...@akamai.com <mailto:tsh...@akamai.com> > > // “One if by land, two if by sea, three if by the Internet." > > > >> On Mar 26, 2020, at 11:03 AM, Dr. Matthias St. Pierre > >> <matthias.st.pie...@ncp-e.com <mailto:matthias.st.pie...@ncp-e.com>> > >> wrote: > >> > >> I agree, go ahead. > >> > >> Please also consider reverting the change for the 3.0 alpha release as > >> well, see Daniel Stenbergs comment > >> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378#issuecomment-603730581 > >> < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openssl_openssl_issues_11378-23issuecomment-2D603730581&d=DwMGaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik&m=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q&s=djWoIIXyggxwOfbwrmYGrSJdR5tWm06IdzY9x9tDxkA&e= > > > >> > >> Matthias > >> > >> > >> *From**:* openssl-project <openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org > >> <mailto:openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org>> *On Behalf Of *Dmitry > >> Belyavsky > >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:48 PM > >> *To:* Matt Caswell <m...@openssl.org <mailto:m...@openssl.org>> > >> *Cc:* openssl-project@openssl.org <mailto:openssl-project@openssl.org> > >> *Subject:* Re: 1.1.1f > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:14 PM Matt Caswell <m...@openssl.org > >> <mailto:m...@openssl.org>> wrote: > >> > >> The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378 > >> < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openssl_openssl_issues_11378&d=DwMGaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik&m=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q&s=MAiLjfGJWaKvnBvqnM4fcyvGVfUyj9CDANO_vh4wfco&e= > >) > >> has > >> resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch > >> (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400 > >> < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openssl_openssl_pull_11400&d=DwMGaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik&m=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q&s=3hBU2pt84DQlrY1dCnSn9x1ah1gSzH6NEO_bNRH-6DE&e= > >). > >> > >> Given that this seems to have broken quite a bit of stuff, I propose > >> that we do a 1.1.1f soon (possibly next Tuesday - 31st March). > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> > >> I strongly support this idea. > >> > >> -- > >> SY, Dmitry Belyavsky > > >