On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 16:36:30 +0200, Matt Caswell wrote: > On 18/06/2020 13:03, Richard Levitte wrote: > > As for not doing something piecemeal, I actually disagree, I see > > benefit in more than just one person getting their hands dirty (plus > > changing everything in one go may be overwhelming, and would make for > > another huge PR that takes overly much time to get through). However, > > as strategies go, and if we agree on making the change, we could very > > well create an issue for each affected sub-API and have it point at a > > common page that describes what we agreed upon... this could be a > > good use of the github wiki tab, for example. > > I don't mean piecemeal in the sense of doing it spread over a number of > PRs. I mean piecemeal in the sense of doing it spread over a number of > releases. As far as I can tell #11996 and #11997 were one offs without > any long term strategy in mind to convert the whole API in this way.
Ah, ok. I agree with you there, if we're doing this, we should do it consistently for the same release. > > When do you see that time being, then? 3.1 (we've talked about it > > being a "cleanup" release)? 4.0? > > Perhaps never. But if we do it then either 3.1 or 4.0 could be > considered. I am yet to be convinced that its worth it. I actually have a different idea, but that's much more further in the future: a consistent libcrypto API across the board, where all libcrypto functions are in the "namespaces" (i.e. are prefixed with) OSSL or OPENSSL. No exception. That idea would be a fairly complete API remake, and I do think it would be worth the while. So uhm, "never" isn't a line of thinking that I'm ready to accept. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/
