Re: 3.0 beta 1 milestone

2020-09-22 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 06:49:19PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> - It doesn't go into 3.0. No idea what the best way to tag them
>   is.

So I've created a "Post 3.0.0" milestone for that.


Kurt



Re: 3.0 beta 1 milestone

2020-09-18 Thread Richard Levitte
I've found what's going wrong there, and I agree that it needs to be
fixed ASAP, although I don't view it per se as a beta 1 blocker.

Either way, a fix is coming up.

Cheers,
Richard

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 19:21:50 +0200,
Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Matt,
> 
> I think #12891 is a significant problem. I'd suggest fixing it before beta1 
> or at least discuss
> it.
> 
> Many thanks!
> 
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:48 PM Matt Caswell  wrote:
> 
> There's been quite a number of PRs added to the 3.0 beta 1 milestone.
>
> Within the PRs there are a couple of bug fixes:
>
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12884
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12874
>
> IMO these would be really nice to get into beta 1, but they should not
> be considered blockers for it (i.e. if they didn't go in, it shouldn't
> stop us from releasing beta 1).
>
> There are also some nice-to-have items:
>
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12777
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12771
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12726
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12669
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12072
>
> Again - these are nice-to-have, and if they happen to get merged in time
> for beta 1 then great. Otherwise, they should wait for 3.1 (possibly
> things which are just cleanup/minor refactoring could still be done
> within the beta period). So, IMO, these should not be considered
> blockers either.
>
> So - this leads me to the question - what is the milestone for? Does it
> means these things *must* go in before we can release beta 1? Or does it
> mean we would *like* to get these things in for beta 1?
>
> I actually don't mind either way - but if its the latter, then I need a
> way of identifying the "must haves". These are the top priority items,
> and at the moment I can't easily track their progress.
>
> Matt
> 
> --
> SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
> 
> 
-- 
Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/


Re: 3.0 beta 1 milestone

2020-09-18 Thread Matt Caswell



On 18/09/2020 08:26, Richard Levitte wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:57:52 +0200,
> Tomas Mraz wrote:
>> I do not think the milestone should include nice-to-have items.
> 
> Another view is that beta 1 is feature freeze.  If those nice to have
> items are characterized as new features, then it makes sense to have
> them included in the beta 1 milestone if we want them for 3.0.0.
> Otherwise, we will have to put them on the waiting list for after
> 3.0.0.

Not every feature that someone dreams up and creates a PR for should
mean we have to hold 3.0 beta 1 until it goes in. There are features
that are required, and features that are nice-to-have. If nice-to-have
features don't reach approval in time, then they should be dropped from
3.0, and wait for 3.1 instead.

Matt



> 
> If they are not characterized as new features, that is a different
> matter, of course.  The conclusion is that we will have to take some
> time (I assume that'll be quick in most cases) thinking how we
> characterize certain PRs before beta 1 is released.
> 
> Cheers,
> Richard
> 


Re: 3.0 beta 1 milestone

2020-09-18 Thread Tomas Mraz
On Fri, 2020-09-18 at 09:26 +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:57:52 +0200,
> Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > I do not think the milestone should include nice-to-have items.
> 
> Another view is that beta 1 is feature freeze.  If those nice to have
> items are characterized as new features, then it makes sense to have
> them included in the beta 1 milestone if we want them for 3.0.0.
> Otherwise, we will have to put them on the waiting list for after
> 3.0.0.

Yes, but that effectively makes them either "must have in beta1" if we
decide that we want them in 3.0.0 or "not at all in beta1" if we decide
otherwise. As we are so close to beta1 now we should not have any
"let's see if they can make it" features for 3.0.0 anymore.

> If they are not characterized as new features, that is a different
> matter, of course.  The conclusion is that we will have to take some
> time (I assume that'll be quick in most cases) thinking how we
> characterize certain PRs before beta 1 is released.

Yes!

-- 
Tomáš Mráz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
  Turkish proverb
[You'll know whether the road is wrong if you carefully listen to your
conscience.]




Re: 3.0 beta 1 milestone

2020-09-18 Thread Richard Levitte
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 18:49:19 +0200,
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 01:48:18PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> > So - this leads me to the question - what is the milestone for? Does it
> > means these things *must* go in before we can release beta 1? Or does it
> > mean we would *like* to get these things in for beta 1?
> 
> We need to have a decision about those before beta 1, which can
> include:
> - It should be in beta 1
> - It doesn't block beta 1, before the 3.0 release is fine too,
>   which just means that you change the milestone to 3.0
> - It doesn't go into 3.0. No idea what the best way to tag them
>   is.

Sorry, I realise I repeated what you said...

Regarding things not going into 3.0.0, one way is not to assign a
milestone to them.  If we decide to do it that way, it probably means
that we should set the 3.0.0 milestone on everything that we consider
a bug fix rather than a new feature.

Cheers,
Richard

-- 
Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/


Re: 3.0 beta 1 milestone

2020-09-18 Thread Richard Levitte
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:57:52 +0200,
Tomas Mraz wrote:
> I do not think the milestone should include nice-to-have items.

Another view is that beta 1 is feature freeze.  If those nice to have
items are characterized as new features, then it makes sense to have
them included in the beta 1 milestone if we want them for 3.0.0.
Otherwise, we will have to put them on the waiting list for after
3.0.0.

If they are not characterized as new features, that is a different
matter, of course.  The conclusion is that we will have to take some
time (I assume that'll be quick in most cases) thinking how we
characterize certain PRs before beta 1 is released.

Cheers,
Richard

-- 
Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/


Re: 3.0 beta 1 milestone

2020-09-17 Thread Dmitry Belyavsky
Dear Matt,

I think #12891 is a significant problem. I'd suggest fixing it before beta1
or at least discuss it.

Many thanks!

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:48 PM Matt Caswell  wrote:

> There's been quite a number of PRs added to the 3.0 beta 1 milestone.
>
> Within the PRs there are a couple of bug fixes:
>
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12884
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12874
>
> IMO these would be really nice to get into beta 1, but they should not
> be considered blockers for it (i.e. if they didn't go in, it shouldn't
> stop us from releasing beta 1).
>
> There are also some nice-to-have items:
>
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12777
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12771
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12726
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12669
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12072
>
> Again - these are nice-to-have, and if they happen to get merged in time
> for beta 1 then great. Otherwise, they should wait for 3.1 (possibly
> things which are just cleanup/minor refactoring could still be done
> within the beta period). So, IMO, these should not be considered
> blockers either.
>
> So - this leads me to the question - what is the milestone for? Does it
> means these things *must* go in before we can release beta 1? Or does it
> mean we would *like* to get these things in for beta 1?
>
> I actually don't mind either way - but if its the latter, then I need a
> way of identifying the "must haves". These are the top priority items,
> and at the moment I can't easily track their progress.
>
> Matt
>
>
>

-- 
SY, Dmitry Belyavsky


Re: 3.0 beta 1 milestone

2020-09-17 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 01:48:18PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> So - this leads me to the question - what is the milestone for? Does it
> means these things *must* go in before we can release beta 1? Or does it
> mean we would *like* to get these things in for beta 1?

We need to have a decision about those before beta 1, which can
include:
- It should be in beta 1
- It doesn't block beta 1, before the 3.0 release is fine too,
  which just means that you change the milestone to 3.0
- It doesn't go into 3.0. No idea what the best way to tag them
  is.


Kurt



Re: 3.0 beta 1 milestone

2020-09-17 Thread Tomas Mraz
On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 13:48 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> There's been quite a number of PRs added to the 3.0 beta 1 milestone.
> 
> Within the PRs there are a couple of bug fixes:
> 
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12884
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12874
> 
> IMO these would be really nice to get into beta 1, but they should
> not
> be considered blockers for it (i.e. if they didn't go in, it
> shouldn't
> stop us from releasing beta 1).
> 
> There are also some nice-to-have items:
> 
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12777
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12771
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12726
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12669
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12072
> 
> Again - these are nice-to-have, and if they happen to get merged in
> time
> for beta 1 then great. Otherwise, they should wait for 3.1 (possibly
> things which are just cleanup/minor refactoring could still be done
> within the beta period). So, IMO, these should not be considered
> blockers either.
> 
> So - this leads me to the question - what is the milestone for? Does
> it
> means these things *must* go in before we can release beta 1? Or does
> it
> mean we would *like* to get these things in for beta 1?
> 
> I actually don't mind either way - but if its the latter, then I need
> a
> way of identifying the "must haves". These are the top priority
> items,
> and at the moment I can't easily track their progress.

I do not think the milestone should include nice-to-have items.

-- 
Tomáš Mráz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
  Turkish proverb
[You'll know whether the road is wrong if you carefully listen to your
conscience.]




3.0 beta 1 milestone

2020-09-17 Thread Matt Caswell
There's been quite a number of PRs added to the 3.0 beta 1 milestone.

Within the PRs there are a couple of bug fixes:

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12884
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12874

IMO these would be really nice to get into beta 1, but they should not
be considered blockers for it (i.e. if they didn't go in, it shouldn't
stop us from releasing beta 1).

There are also some nice-to-have items:

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12777
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12771
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12726
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12669
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12072

Again - these are nice-to-have, and if they happen to get merged in time
for beta 1 then great. Otherwise, they should wait for 3.1 (possibly
things which are just cleanup/minor refactoring could still be done
within the beta period). So, IMO, these should not be considered
blockers either.

So - this leads me to the question - what is the milestone for? Does it
means these things *must* go in before we can release beta 1? Or does it
mean we would *like* to get these things in for beta 1?

I actually don't mind either way - but if its the latter, then I need a
way of identifying the "must haves". These are the top priority items,
and at the moment I can't easily track their progress.

Matt