Re: [openssl-project] Current votes FYI
Dang, you’re right.
I’ll re-run the vote. But for now I reverted the website commit.
From: Tim Hudson
Reply-To: "openssl-project@openssl.org"
Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 5:00 PM
To: "openssl-project@openssl.org"
Subject: Re: [openssl-project] Current votes FYI
No that vote does not pass. All votes require participation by a majority of
active members. Failure to have a majority participation causes a vote to fail.
With only three out of eight members voting this vote simply did not pass.
Tim.
On Thu, 24 May 2018, 12:59 am Salz, Rich,
mailto:rs...@akamai.com>> wrote:
Another update
VOTE: Remove the second paragraph ("Binary compatibility...improve security")
from the release strategy.
+1: 2
0: 1
-1: 0
No vote: 5
The vote passed.
___
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
___
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] Current votes FYI
No that vote does not pass. All votes require participation by a majority
of active members. Failure to have a majority participation causes a vote
to fail.
With only three out of eight members voting this vote simply did not pass.
Tim.
On Thu, 24 May 2018, 12:59 am Salz, Rich, wrote:
> Another update
>
> VOTE: Remove the second paragraph ("Binary compatibility...improve
> security")
> from the release strategy.
>
> +1: 2
> 0: 1
> -1: 0
> No vote: 5
>
> The vote passed.
>
>
> ___
> openssl-project mailing list
> openssl-project@openssl.org
> https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
>
___
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] build/test before merging
In message <20180523.180148.154491224151456127.levi...@openssl.org> on Wed, 23 May 2018 18:01:48 +0200 (CEST), Richard Levitte said: levitte> In message <6d5b206f-a0f1-8b60-fbf5-5f08c7c26...@openssl.org> on Wed, 23 May 2018 16:54:23 +0100, Matt Caswell said: levitte> levitte> matt> On 23/05/18 16:50, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: levitte> matt> > But I am curious if we currently do and/or should have a commit hook levitte> matt> > on git.openssl.org to reject commits that start with "!fixup". levitte> levitte> That's "fixup! ", and "squash! " (for --squash) should be added as well. levitte> levitte> matt> Not that I know of. We probably should have. A quick check reveals two levitte> matt> such commits that have made it into master...both mine unfortunately :-( levitte> levitte> I've been close a couple of times... levitte> levitte> But yeah, good idea, I'll go ahead and craft that together. Gitolite levitte> makes it quite easy to configure. Quick script added. The quick tests I made seem to work right. If something strange happens, tell me ASAP. -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] build/test before merging
In message <6d5b206f-a0f1-8b60-fbf5-5f08c7c26...@openssl.org> on Wed, 23 May 2018 16:54:23 +0100, Matt Caswell said: matt> On 23/05/18 16:50, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: matt> > But I am curious if we currently do and/or should have a commit hook matt> > on git.openssl.org to reject commits that start with "!fixup". That's "fixup! ", and "squash! " (for --squash) should be added as well. matt> Not that I know of. We probably should have. A quick check reveals two matt> such commits that have made it into master...both mine unfortunately :-( I've been close a couple of times... But yeah, good idea, I'll go ahead and craft that together. Gitolite makes it quite easy to configure. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] build/test before merging
On 23/05/18 16:50, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 03:12:30PM +, Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote: >>> So do you guys use the ghmerge script or own procedures? I'm curious. >> >> At the beginnning, I tried to use ghmerge but it was not flexible >> enough for my needs. In particular, it only gives me the choice >> between squashing everything or leaving everything as it is. Most >> notably, it does not support partial squashing by interactive >> rebasing. Or alternatively: pausing + letting me fix something + >> resuming. What I also dislike is that it uses a lot of GitHub API > > Sorry for partially hijacking the thread, but this reminds me that > several people have started using the "git commit --fixup" tooling, > which is in general helpful for the reviewer (to know what the > squashing intention is). It's also helpful because it preserves the history of the review (you can see what changed since the last time you looked at it). > > But I am curious if we currently do and/or should have a commit hook > on git.openssl.org to reject commits that start with "!fixup". Not that I know of. We probably should have. A quick check reveals two such commits that have made it into master...both mine unfortunately :-( Matt ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] build/test before merging
> But I am curious if we currently do and/or should have a commit hook on > git.openssl.org to reject commits that start with "!fixup". We probably don't, but it's a good idea to have it. Matthias ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] build/test before merging
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 03:12:30PM +, Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote: > > So do you guys use the ghmerge script or own procedures? I'm curious. > > At the beginnning, I tried to use ghmerge but it was not flexible > enough for my needs. In particular, it only gives me the choice > between squashing everything or leaving everything as it is. Most > notably, it does not support partial squashing by interactive > rebasing. Or alternatively: pausing + letting me fix something + > resuming. What I also dislike is that it uses a lot of GitHub API Sorry for partially hijacking the thread, but this reminds me that several people have started using the "git commit --fixup" tooling, which is in general helpful for the reviewer (to know what the squashing intention is). But I am curious if we currently do and/or should have a commit hook on git.openssl.org to reject commits that start with "!fixup". -Ben ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] build/test before merging
> +1 for python! :)
Well, if this is a "go for it"... ;-)
Oh, and I forgot to mention 'ghtool cherry-pick {110,102}'
___
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] build/test before merging
>Unfortunately, I didn't have time to follow my vision yet. Also, it would > have been easier for me to do it in Python than in Perl. +1 for python! :) ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
[openssl-project] Some failing builds in travis?
https://travis-ci.org/openssl/openssl/jobs/382694134 https://api.travis-ci.org/v3/job/382694134/log.txt Test Summary Report --- ../test/recipes/70-test_comp.t (Wstat: 26624 Tests: 0 Failed: 0) Non-zero exit status: 104 Parse errors: No plan found in TAP output ../test/recipes/70-test_key_share.t (Wstat: 26624 Tests: 0 Failed: 0) Non-zero exit status: 104 Parse errors: No plan found in TAP output ../test/recipes/70-test_sslrecords.t (Wstat: 26624 Tests: 17 Failed: 0) Non-zero exit status: 104 Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 18 tests but ran 17. ../test/recipes/70-test_sslsigalgs.t (Wstat: 26624 Tests: 0 Failed: 0) Non-zero exit status: 104 Parse errors: No plan found in TAP output ../test/recipes/70-test_sslsignature.t (Wstat: 26624 Tests: 0 Failed: 0) Non-zero exit status: 104 Parse errors: No plan found in TAP output ../test/recipes/70-test_sslversions.t(Wstat: 26624 Tests: 4 Failed: 0) Non-zero exit status: 104 Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 7 tests but ran 4. ../test/recipes/70-test_tls13cookie.t(Wstat: 26624 Tests: 0 Failed: 0) Non-zero exit status: 104 Parse errors: No plan found in TAP output ../test/recipes/70-test_tls13kexmodes.t (Wstat: 19712 Tests: 0 Failed: 0) Non-zero exit status: 77 Parse errors: No plan found in TAP output ../test/recipes/70-test_tls13messages.t (Wstat: 8192 Tests: 1 Failed: 0) Non-zero exit status: 32 Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 16 tests but ran 1. ../test/recipes/70-test_tls13psk.t (Wstat: 19712 Tests: 0 Failed: 0) Non-zero exit status: 77 Parse errors: No plan found in TAP output ../test/recipes/70-test_tlsextms.t (Wstat: 26624 Tests: 9 Failed: 0) Non-zero exit status: 104 Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 10 tests but ran 9. Files=147, Tests=1249, 358 wallclock secs ( 5.94 usr 1.09 sys + 287.60 cusr 53.16 csys = 347.79 CPU) Result: FAIL make[1]: *** [_tests] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/travis/build/openssl/openssl' make: *** [tests] Error 2 +/ MAKE TEST FAILED -- Viktor. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] build/test before merging
My vision is a more versatile tool (say: ghtool) with separate subcommands as
building blocks to simplify common subtasks:
ghtool {checkout,rebase,squash,addrev,push} ...
This tool could support the concept of a "current pull request" by using a
naming convention for the local branches: 'ghtool checkout ' could fetch
and checkout to branch pr-, after which the following commands 'git
rebase', 'git addrev', etc. could use the branch name as indicator for the
current branch. This would make it possible to implement 'ghtool addrev' such
that one neither has to provide --prnum= nor a commit range.
Unfortunately, I didn't have time to follow my vision yet. Also, it would have
been easier for me to do it in Python than in Perl.
Matthias
___
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] build/test before merging
> So do you guys use the ghmerge script or own procedures? I'm curious. At the beginnning, I tried to use ghmerge but it was not flexible enough for my needs. In particular, it only gives me the choice between squashing everything or leaving everything as it is. Most notably, it does not support partial squashing by interactive rebasing. Or alternatively: pausing + letting me fix something + resuming. What I also dislike is that it uses a lot of GitHub API overhead, for example it pulls the commits from the pr owner's repository, instead of pulling the branch directly from openssl/openssl using the refs/pull/*/head references (which wouldn't require the github api). Currently, I use only addrev and raw git commands. As an aid, I have a fetch rule fetch = +refs/pull/*/head:refs/remotes/github/pr-* which enables me to do a simple 'git checkout pr-'. Matthias ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] Current votes FYI
Another update
VOTE: Remove the second paragraph ("Binary compatibility...improve security")
from the release strategy.
+1: 2
0: 1
-1: 0
No vote: 5
The vote passed.
___
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] Current votes FYI
FYI, all of these votes are now closed. The final vote results are inserted below. On 07/05/18 02:37, Salz, Rich wrote: > VOTE: openssl-web and tools repositories shall be under the same review > policy as per the openssl repository where the reviewers are OMC members +1: 5 0: 1 -1: 1 No vote: 1 The vote passed. > VOTE: That we remove "We strongly believe that the right to advance > patches/info should not be based in any way on paid membership to some > forum. You cannot pay us to get security patches in advance" from the > security policy and Mark posts a blog entry to explain the change > including that we have no current such service. +1: 4 0: 2 -1: 1 No vote: 1 The vote passed. > VOTE: 1.1.1 beta release schedule changed so that the next two beta > releases are now 29th May, 19 June and we will re-review release > readiness after that. We will also ensure that there is at least one > beta release post TLS-1.3 RFC publication prior to the final release. +1: 7 0: 0 -1: 0 No vote: 1 The vote passed. > VOTE: Remove the entire "Forthcoming Features" section from the Roadmap > Policy and open github issues for those items listed which have not yet > been completed and do not currently have issues raised or PR submitted. +1: 4 0: 3 -1: 0 No vote: 1 The vote passed. > VOTE: We don't intend to be involved in adding any additional platforms > to the OpenSSL FIPS validation; instead we will work to enable other > parties to meet this need. +1: 5 0: 2 -1: 0 No vote: 1 The vote passed. > VOTE: The next LTS release will be 1.1.1 and the LTS expiry date for > 1.0.2 will not be changed. +1: 7 0: 0 -1: 0 No vote: 1 The vote passed. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] build/test before merging
On 23/05/18 01:43, Salz, Rich wrote: > > I do the same, but I am reluctant having a script doing it for me using > some fixed recipe... > >>I'm happy doing the build/test manually before merging, too. > > > So do you guys use the ghmerge script or own procedures? I'm curious. I tried it once. Didn't like it, so I always do my own procedure. Matt ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
