On 17/08/18 17:44, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 06:39:54PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
>> In message <20180817162909.ga10...@roeckx.be> on Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:29:09
>> +0200, Kurt Roeckx said:
>>
>> kurt> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 01:55:13PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
>> kurt> > Personally, I see this as a showstopper re a release on Tuesday
>> kurt>
>> kurt> You mean a beta release?
>>
>> ...
>>
>> D'oh. For some reason, I got mixed up and imagined a live release on
>> Tuesday.
>>
>> So ok, not a showstopper per se, even though I would have *liked* to
>> see as much of the applicable issues fixed and PRs (and that includes
>> those I'm talking about) applied as possible.
>>
>> However, I think we need to go over the "Assessed" milestone stuff and
>> make an actual assessment on them (i.e. labeling them correctly). The
>> final release will probably not be very far away, and I'd hate to have
>> to call showstopper again by then.
>
> I agree. And, if we make a bunch of (bugfix) changes between a beta
> release and the scheduled final release, it may be more appropriate to do
> another beta than to do a final release with "many" (vaguely defined)
> changes since the last beta.
I don't really see why an issue that is currently in 1.1.0 should
prevent us from issuing 1.1.1 with the same issue. 1.1.0 has been out
for sometime now. Any truly serious issues should have been already
fixed. That's not to say we should just ignore 1.1.0 issues - of course
we should try and fix them. It's just that I don't see a dependency on
fixing those issues for releasing 1.1.1.
That at least was the thinking that went into the reclassification of
many issues to "Assessed".
Matt
>
> -Ben
>
>> See this thread as an early warning ;-)
> ___
> 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
