On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:46:53 +0200,
Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote:
> > If we make them the same, what's the reason to have both?
>
> I completely agree. According to my understanding, it would have
> made more sense if we had created an "OpenSSL 3.0" project for
> managing all what needs to go in
Concerning PR #4930:
Originally that PR was about extending support for PKCS#12 input in
apps, which meanwhile has been superseded mostly by OSSL_STORE.
I meanwhile carved out the most interesting remaining pieces of the PRĀ
and contributed them separately.
I've just rebased and cleaned up the var
> I fail to see why the milestones '3.0.0' / '3.0.0 beta1' must be 1:1
> with the '3.0 New Core + FIPS' project.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, Richard. I did not intend to mess around with
your project organization.
Since it was the only active GitHub project, I misinterpreted it as the "3.0.
On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 22:41:23 +0200,
Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote:
>
> Conversely, there were also pull requests associated with the '3.0.0' or
> '3.0.0 beta1' milestone,
> without being associated to the '3.0 New Core + FIPS' project. This has
> been fixed now.
I fail to see why the mileston
> BTW: It took me all my force of will to resist the temptation of making a pun
> by naming the label [urgent: beta blocker].
Failed you have. Your training is not yet compete :)
Pauli
--
Dr Paul Dale | Distinguished Architect | Cryptographic Foundations
Phone +61 7 3031 7217
Oracle Australia
Conversely, there were also pull requests associated with the '3.0.0' or '3.0.0
beta1' milestone,
without being associated to the '3.0 New Core + FIPS' project. This has been
fixed now.
> when your time permits, could you please double-check whether all important
> tickets
> for beta1 were moved correctly from '3.0.0' to '3.0.0 beta1'?
The '3.0 New Core + FIPS' project currently lists 21 open pull requests,
[is:open is:pr project:openssl/openssl/2]:
https://github.com/
That's a very nice summary, Matt.
when your time permits, could you please double-check whether all important
tickets
for beta1 were moved correctly from '3.0.0' to '3.0.0 beta1'?
Thanks,
Matthias
l again.
>
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/milestone/17
>
> Matthias
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dr. Matthias St. Pierre
> > Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 3:17 PM
> > To: openssl-projec
s for the official documentation you
> mentioned, are you talking about this one?
> https://github.com/features/project-management
>
> Matthias
>
>
> From: Nicola Tuveri
> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 4:17 PM
> To: Dr. Matthias St. Pierre
> Cc: openssl-project@openssl
?
https://github.com/features/project-management
Matthias
From: Nicola Tuveri
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 4:17 PM
To: Dr. Matthias St. Pierre
Cc: openssl-project@openssl.org
Subject: Re: New GitHub label for release blockers
Matthias overcredits me: I just wanted to know his opinion
Original Message-
> > From: Dr. Matthias St. Pierre
> > Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 3:17 PM
> > To: openssl-project@openssl.org
> > Subject: New GitHub label for release blockers
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > taking up again the discussion from ope
/milestone/17
Matthias
> -Original Message-
> From: Dr. Matthias St. Pierre
> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 3:17 PM
> To: openssl-project@openssl.org
> Subject: New GitHub label for release blockers
>
> Hi all,
>
> taking up again the discussion from openss
I added some issues mentioned in the 'Beta1 PR deadline' thread to the new
label.
Feel free to extend and modify the list as necessary.
Hi all,
taking up again the discussion from openssl-project where I suggested to (ab)use
the 3.0.0 milestone for release blockers, (see link and citation at the end of
the mail),
I propose to add a new label for this purpose instead. In fact, I already
created the label
[urgent: release
15 matches
Mail list logo