Sorry yes, I meant to refer to the open PR with the s390 support, I picked the wrong number!
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 17:54 Matt Caswell <m...@openssl.org> wrote: > > > On 25/06/2020 15:33, Nicola Tuveri wrote: > > In light of how the discussion evolved I would say that not only there > > is consensus on supporting the definition of a detailed policy on > > backports and the definitions of what are the requirements for regular > > releases vs LTS releases (other than the longer support timeframe), > > but also highlights a need to do it sooner rather than later! > > > > This seems a job for the OMC, as it falls under: > > > >> makes all decisions regarding management and strategic direction of the > project; including: > >> - business requirements; > >> - feature requirements; > >> - platform requirements; > >> - roadmap requirements and priority; > >> - end-of-life decisions; > >> - release timing and requirement decisions; > > > > My contribution to the discussion is to ask if the OMC has plans for > > addressing this in the very short term. > > I think its unlikely we are going to get to a policy in the short term. > It seems to me we are still some way away from a consensus here. > > > If working on a policy is going to be a medium-term effort, maybe it > > would be opportune to call an OTC vote specific to #11968 under the > > current release requirements defined by the OMC (or lack thereof). > > 11968 is already merged and, AFAIK, no one has proposed reverting it. If > such a PR was raised then a vote might be a way forward for it. > > 11188 is the more pressing problem because that is currently unmerged > and stuck. That has an OTC hold on it (placed there by me), so an OTC > vote seems appropriate. If a vote is held it should be to decide whether > backporting it is consistent with our current understanding of the > policy such as it is. It is for the OMC to decide whether a different > policy should be introduced at some point in the future. > > Matt > > > > > > We already saw a few comments in favor of evaluating backporting > > #11968 as an exception, in light of the supporting arguments, even if > > it was in conflict with the current policy understanding or the > > upcoming policy formulation. > > So if we could swiftly agree on this being an OTC or OMC vote, I would > > urge to have a dedicated discussion/vote specific to #11968, while > > more detailed policies and definitions are in the process of being > > formulated. > > > > - What is the consensus on splitting the 2 discussions? > > - If splitting the discussions, is deciding on #11968 an OTC or OMC > matter? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Nicola > > >