Re: [openssl-project] NEW: A proposal for an updated OpenSSL version scheme (v3.0-dev)
Looks great Richard. I'd support that I think. Pauli -- Oracle Dr Paul Dale | Cryptographer | Network Security & Encryption Phone +61 7 3031 7217 Oracle Australia -Original Message- From: Richard Levitte [mailto:levi...@openssl.org] Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2018 1:41 AM To: openssl-project@openssl.org Subject: [openssl-project] NEW: A proposal for an updated OpenSSL version scheme (v3.0-dev) Following the discussion that we had on the previous documents and on all the input I got, I created a new version (v3.0-dev) for this proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6l7VYn176JKzOtERdp9OG0HcyhnJZnVdRLD07L_1wE/ It's written from the point of view that the comment in opensslv.h and the documentation in OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER.pod are correct as to what the components in the version number are, and that we simply didn't do as the docs said since 1.0.0. So the idea is to simply reset, and then synthesize the value of existing macros (especially OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER) to be safe to use as we have observed that users do. This document leaves a few questions open: 1. what version will the next major release actually be? 2.0.0 has been suggested, and 3.0.0 as well. I see that as out of scope for this document, and should simply be voted on by the OMC at some point. 2. how should we handle ABI compatibility / incompatibility? It's possible that it's out of scope here, I'm unsure... 3. policies on what should and should not go into what version number level? I see that as out of scope for this document, but is definitly a related topic to discuss. 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 ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] NEW: A proposal for an updated OpenSSL version scheme (v3.0-dev)
In message on Mon, 24 Sep 2018 16:09:07 +, "Dr. Matthias St. Pierre" said: > > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > > Von: openssl-project Im Auftrag von > > Richard Levitte > > Gesendet: Montag, 24. September 2018 17:41 > > An: openssl-project@openssl.org > > Betreff: [openssl-project] NEW: A proposal for an updated OpenSSL version > > scheme (v3.0-dev) > > > > Following the discussion that we had on the previous documents and on > > all the input I got, I created a new version (v3.0-dev) for this proposal: > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6l7VYn176JKzOtERdp9OG0HcyhnJZnVdRLD07L_1wE/ > > > > It's written from the point of view that the comment in opensslv.h and > > the documentation in OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER.pod are correct as to what > > the components in the version number are, and that we simply didn't do > > as the docs said since 1.0.0. So the idea is to simply reset, and > > then synthesize the value of existing macros (especially > > OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER) to be safe to use as we have observed that > > users do. > > I'm not sure about the implication of the new document v3 on the two > proposals from document v2. Does it mean you dropped your own > proposal in favour of Tim's proposal? Or will there be two competing > proposals, each described in its own document? v3 is a new version that replaces v2. So yeah, I'm going with Tim's proposal. That takes us on a path where we don't try to preserve historical habits ad nauseum, but rather do a good enough job for a period of time while fully switching to semantic versioning. 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] NEW: A proposal for an updated OpenSSL version scheme (v3.0-dev)
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: openssl-project Im Auftrag von > Richard Levitte > Gesendet: Montag, 24. September 2018 17:41 > An: openssl-project@openssl.org > Betreff: [openssl-project] NEW: A proposal for an updated OpenSSL version > scheme (v3.0-dev) > > Following the discussion that we had on the previous documents and on > all the input I got, I created a new version (v3.0-dev) for this proposal: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6l7VYn176JKzOtERdp9OG0HcyhnJZnVdRLD07L_1wE/ > > It's written from the point of view that the comment in opensslv.h and > the documentation in OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER.pod are correct as to what > the components in the version number are, and that we simply didn't do > as the docs said since 1.0.0. So the idea is to simply reset, and > then synthesize the value of existing macros (especially > OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER) to be safe to use as we have observed that > users do. I'm not sure about the implication of the new document v3 on the two proposals from document v2. Does it mean you dropped your own proposal in favour of Tim's proposal? Or will there be two competing proposals, each described in its own document? Matthias ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
[openssl-project] NEW: A proposal for an updated OpenSSL version scheme (v3.0-dev)
Following the discussion that we had on the previous documents and on all the input I got, I created a new version (v3.0-dev) for this proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6l7VYn176JKzOtERdp9OG0HcyhnJZnVdRLD07L_1wE/ It's written from the point of view that the comment in opensslv.h and the documentation in OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER.pod are correct as to what the components in the version number are, and that we simply didn't do as the docs said since 1.0.0. So the idea is to simply reset, and then synthesize the value of existing macros (especially OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER) to be safe to use as we have observed that users do. This document leaves a few questions open: 1. what version will the next major release actually be? 2.0.0 has been suggested, and 3.0.0 as well. I see that as out of scope for this document, and should simply be voted on by the OMC at some point. 2. how should we handle ABI compatibility / incompatibility? It's possible that it's out of scope here, I'm unsure... 3. policies on what should and should not go into what version number level? I see that as out of scope for this document, but is definitly a related topic to discuss. 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
