gt;>>> Please also consider reverting the change for the 3.0 alpha release as
>>>>>>> well, see Daniel Stenbergs comment
>>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378#issuecomment-603730581
>>>>>>> <
>
There seems to be broad support for a 1.1.1f release. Unless I hear an
OMC objection I will formally announce this tomorrow.
Matt
On 27/03/2020 00:10, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:33:40PM +, Matt Caswell wrote:
>
>> On 26/03/2020 23:15, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>>> On
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:33:40PM +, Matt Caswell wrote:
> On 26/03/2020 23:15, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 09:13:32PM +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> >
> >> we got into this situation because everything moves so quickly,
> >> why does everyone here think we should
On 26/03/2020 23:15, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 09:13:32PM +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
>> we got into this situation because everything moves so quickly,
>> why does everyone here think we should move even faster now?
>>
>> What is the reason for this?
>
> We've
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 09:13:32PM +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> we got into this situation because everything moves so quickly,
> why does everyone here think we should move even faster now?
>
> What is the reason for this?
We've published a bug-fix release (1.1.1e) that's liable to cause
>> well, see Daniel Stenbergs comment
>>>>>>
>> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378#issuecomment-603730581
>>>>>> <
>>>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openssl_op
sues/11378#issuecomment-603730581
> >>>> <
> >>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openssl_openssl_issues_11378-23issuecomment-2D603730581=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgn
ufNT40Gip4Q=djWoIIXyggxwOfbwrmYGrSJdR5tWm06IdzY9x9tDxkA=
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From**:* openssl-project >>> <mailto:openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org>> *On Behalf Of *Dmitry
>>&
jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=djWoIIXyggxwOfbwrmYGrSJdR5tWm06IdzY9x9tDxkA=
> >
> >>
> >> Matthias
> >>
> >>
> >> *From**:* openssl-project >> <mailto:openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org&
OfbwrmYGrSJdR5tWm06IdzY9x9tDxkA=>
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>>
>> *From**:* openssl-project > <mailto:openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org>> *On Behalf Of *Dmitry
>> Belyavsky
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:48 PM
>> *To:* Matt Caswell
gt;
>
> From: openssl-project On Behalf Of
> Dmitry Belyavsky
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:48 PM
> To: Matt Caswell
> Cc: openssl-project@openssl.org
> Subject: Re: 1.1.1f
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:14 PM Matt Caswell <mailto:m...@opens
On 3/26/20 3:14 PM, Matt Caswell wrote:
> The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has
> resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch
> (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400).
>
> Given that this seems to have broken quite a bit of stuff, I
> Please also consider reverting the change for the 3.0 alpha release as well,
> see Daniel Stenbergs comment
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378#issuecomment-603730581
Never mind my last comment. I noticed a lot of discussion has been going on in
issue #11378 and I was not
quite
:48 PM
To: Matt Caswell
Cc: openssl-project@openssl.org
Subject: Re: 1.1.1f
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:14 PM Matt Caswell
mailto:m...@openssl.org>> wrote:
The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has
resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:14 PM Matt Caswell wrote:
> The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has
> resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch
> (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400).
>
> Given that this seems to have broken quite a bit
On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 14:14 +, Matt Caswell wrote:
> The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has
> resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch
> (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400).
>
> Given that this seems to have broken quite a
On 3/26/20 3:14 PM, Matt Caswell wrote:
> The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has
> resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch
> (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400).
>
> Given that this seems to have broken quite a bit of stuff,
17 matches
Mail list logo