In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 9
Aug 2002 20:55:19 -0400 (EDT), Rich Salz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
rsalz> Now, having dressed you down a bit, I will say that the openssl team
rsalz> churned through releases a little too quickly. They should have left the
rsalz> patches they had, and then done a real fix in a week or so. But, since
rsalz> this is the first time they've *ever* had to respond to such a situation,
rsalz> all told it's not a big deal.
Hmm, I wonder, wouldn't there have been an outcry from people who
don't want to deal with patches? patch isn't the most well-known
program in Windows, as far as I know (I can't really say that I know
much on that platform, though)...
Anyway, if just patches would have been enough, it definitely may be
something for us to look into, at least in my opinion. If nothing
else, it definitely saves us the work of making releases :-).
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
