Re: [openssl-project] GitHub milestone for 1.1.1

In message <97cff4a5-de0e-4d17-8a07-242961d6f...@akamai.com> on Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:47:05 +, "Salz, Rich" said: rsalz> Yes, SM2 ECC is a big one that seems to have fallen thru the cracks. And 4848. That is *very* unfortunate. rsalz> rsalz> Instead time and energy went to FIXING Android, co

Re: [openssl-project] GitHub milestone for 1.1.1

On 19/03/18 12:47, Salz, Rich wrote: > various no-XXX builds. In my mind run-checker is a CI just like travis and appveyor. If something is failing in run-checker (i.e. a no-XXX build) then its a "must fix" asap. Otherwise these errors tend to accumulate and it becomes harder and harder to fix

Re: [openssl-project] GitHub milestone for 1.1.1

Yes, SM2 ECC is a big one that seems to have fallen thru the cracks. And 4848. That is *very* unfortunate. Instead time and energy went to FIXING Android, configure command-line, and various no-XXX builds. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-pro

Re: [openssl-project] GitHub milestone for 1.1.1

In message <001364a7-e3c5-4e2b-8f0b-6ed1a041f...@akamai.com> on Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:27:19 +, "Salz, Rich" said: rsalz> I would consider it a bug-fix FWIW. rsalz> rsalz> I thought we extended the deadline so that we could review more rsalz> third-party PR's.I'm still waiting on an e_os/M

Re: [openssl-project] GitHub milestone for 1.1.1

I too see this in the "bug fix" area - although you can make a reasonable counter argument (but I don't see a lot of point in doing so). Improving the build environment is a good thing IMHO ... Tim. On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Salz, Rich wrote: > I would consider it a bug-fix FWIW. > > I

Re: [openssl-project] GitHub milestone for 1.1.1

I would consider it a bug-fix FWIW. I thought we extended the deadline so that we could review more third-party PR's.I'm still waiting on an e_os/Microsoft cleanup, but getting community stuff in is more important. ___ openssl-project mailing li

Re: [openssl-project] GitHub milestone for 1.1.1

Ok. I see it the same way, and indications are that others would agree as well... In message on Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:56:23 +, Matt Caswell said: matt> This is definitely in the grey area, but I tend to think it is more matt> towards the "fix" side than the "feature" side. Also the risk is

Re: [openssl-project] GitHub milestone for 1.1.1

This is definitely in the grey area, but I tend to think it is more towards the "fix" side than the "feature" side. Also the risk is significantly mitigated by it only impacting VMS. Matt On 19/03/18 11:52, Richard Levitte wrote: > In message <7aa44215-febf-73d2-3d0f-12f99b44b...@openssl.org> on

Re: [openssl-project] GitHub milestone for 1.1.1

In message <7aa44215-febf-73d2-3d0f-12f99b44b...@openssl.org> on Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:14:27 +, Matt Caswell said: matt> matt> matt> On 19/03/18 10:58, Richard Levitte wrote: matt> > Andy has indicated that the rather special construction to get command line C macro definitions and include

Re: [openssl-project] GitHub milestone for 1.1.1

In message <15c91d39-bf3c-86e7--756bc942d...@ncp-e.com> on Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:27:40 +0100, "Dr. Matthias St. Pierre" said: Matthias.St.Pierre> Hi, Matthias.St.Pierre> Matthias.St.Pierre> in view of the upcoming beta release and the release strategy (see Matthias.St.Pierre> below) it is a

[openssl-project] GitHub milestone for 1.1.1

Hi, in view of the upcoming beta release and the release strategy (see below) it is a little bit disturbing that our GitHub milestone for 1.1.1 shows only 30% completion. How are we going to deal with this? Shouldn't the PR's and issues be examined

Re: [openssl-project] GitHub milestone for 1.1.1

On 19/03/18 08:27, Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote: > Hi, > > in view of the upcoming beta release and the release strategy (see > below) it is a little bit disturbing that our GitHub milestone for 1.1.1 > shows only 30% > completion. How are we goi

Re: [openssl-project] GitHub milestone for 1.1.1

Andy has indicated that the rather special construction to get command line C macro definitions and include paths specs collected in one place (*) is perhaps too special and could be handle by parsing CPPFLAGS and extra multiple definitions to get them collected in one spot. I have some ideas o

Re: [openssl-project] GitHub milestone for 1.1.1

On 19/03/18 10:58, Richard Levitte wrote: > Andy has indicated that the rather special construction to get command line C > macro definitions and include paths specs collected in one place (*) is > perhaps too special and could be handle by parsing CPPFLAGS and extra > multiple definitions to