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/

Reply via email to