Re: OTC VOTE: Fixing missing failure exit status is a bug fix

[Nicola Tuveri]

The vote is now closed, and accepted!



> topic: In the context of the OpenSSL apps, the OTC qualifies as bug
>fixes the changes to return a failure exit status when a called
>function fails with an unhandled return value.
>Even when these bug fixes change the apps behavior triggering
>early exits (compared to previous versions of the apps), as bug
>fixes, they do not qualify as behavior changes that require an
>explicit OMC approval.
> Proposed by Nicola Tuveri
> Public: yes
> opened: 2020-11-30
> closed: 2020-12-21
> accepted:  yes  (for: 9, against: 0, abstained: 0, not voted: 2)
>
>   Matt   [+1]
>   Mark   [  ]
>   Pauli  [+1]
>   Viktor [  ]
>   Tim[+1]
>   Richard[+1]
>   Shane  [+1]
>   Tomas  [+1]
>   Kurt   [+1]
>   Matthias   [+1]
>   Nicola [+1]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 2:03 PM Nicola Tuveri  wrote:
>
> Vote background
> ---
>
> This follows up on a [previous proposal] that was abandoned in favor of
> an OMC vote on the behavior change introduced in [PR#13359].
> Within today's OTC meeting this was further discussed with the attending
> members that also sit in the OMC.
>
> The suggestion was to improve the separation of the OTC and OMC domains
> here, by having a more generic OTC vote to qualify as bug fixes the
> changes to let any OpenSSL app return an (early) failure exit status
> when a called function fails.
>
> The idea is that, if we agree on this technical definition, then no OMC
> vote to allow a behavior change in the apps would be required in
> general, unless, on a case-by-case basis, the "OMC hold" process is
> invoked for whatever reason on the specific bug fix, triggering the
> usual OMC decision process.
>
> [previous proposal]:
> 
> [PR#13359]: 
>
>
>
> Vote text
> -
>
> topic: In the context of the OpenSSL apps, the OTC qualifies as bug
>fixes the changes to return a failure exit status when a called
>function fails with an unhandled return value.
>Even when these bug fixes change the apps behavior triggering
>early exits (compared to previous versions of the apps), as bug
>fixes, they do not qualify as behavior changes that require an
>explicit OMC approval.
> Proposed by Nicola Tuveri
> Public: yes
> opened: 2020-11-30

Re: OTC VOTE: Fixing missing failure exit status is a bug fix

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 02:03:15PM +0200, Nicola Tuveri wrote:
> Vote text
> -
> 
> topic: In the context of the OpenSSL apps, the OTC qualifies as bug
>fixes the changes to return a failure exit status when a called
>function fails with an unhandled return value.
>Even when these bug fixes change the apps behavior triggering
>early exits (compared to previous versions of the apps), as bug
>fixes, they do not qualify as behavior changes that require an
>explicit OMC approval.

+1


Kurt

Re: OTC VOTE: Fixing missing failure exit status is a bug fix

[Matt Caswell]

+1

On 30/11/2020 12:03, Nicola Tuveri wrote:
> Vote background
> ---
> 
> This follows up on a [previous proposal] that was abandoned in favor of
> an OMC vote on the behavior change introduced in [PR#13359].
> Within today's OTC meeting this was further discussed with the attending
> members that also sit in the OMC.
> 
> The suggestion was to improve the separation of the OTC and OMC domains
> here, by having a more generic OTC vote to qualify as bug fixes the
> changes to let any OpenSSL app return an (early) failure exit status
> when a called function fails.
> 
> The idea is that, if we agree on this technical definition, then no OMC
> vote to allow a behavior change in the apps would be required in
> general, unless, on a case-by-case basis, the "OMC hold" process is
> invoked for whatever reason on the specific bug fix, triggering the
> usual OMC decision process.
> 
> [previous proposal]:
> 
> [PR#13359]: 
> 
> 
> 
> Vote text
> -
> 
> topic: In the context of the OpenSSL apps, the OTC qualifies as bug
>fixes the changes to return a failure exit status when a called
>function fails with an unhandled return value.
>Even when these bug fixes change the apps behavior triggering
>early exits (compared to previous versions of the apps), as bug
>fixes, they do not qualify as behavior changes that require an
>explicit OMC approval.
> Proposed by Nicola Tuveri
> Public: yes
> opened: 2020-11-30
> 

Re: OTC VOTE: Fixing missing failure exit status is a bug fix

[SHANE LONTIS]

+1


> On 30 Nov 2020, at 10:03 pm, Nicola Tuveri  wrote:
> 
> Vote background
> ---
> 
> This follows up on a [previous proposal] that was abandoned in favor of
> an OMC vote on the behavior change introduced in [PR#13359].
> Within today's OTC meeting this was further discussed with the attending
> members that also sit in the OMC.
> 
> The suggestion was to improve the separation of the OTC and OMC domains
> here, by having a more generic OTC vote to qualify as bug fixes the
> changes to let any OpenSSL app return an (early) failure exit status
> when a called function fails.
> 
> The idea is that, if we agree on this technical definition, then no OMC
> vote to allow a behavior change in the apps would be required in
> general, unless, on a case-by-case basis, the "OMC hold" process is
> invoked for whatever reason on the specific bug fix, triggering the
> usual OMC decision process.
> 
> [previous proposal]:
>   >
> [PR#13359]: 
>   >
> 
> 
> 
> Vote text
> -
> 
> topic: In the context of the OpenSSL apps, the OTC qualifies as bug
>   fixes the changes to return a failure exit status when a called
>   function fails with an unhandled return value.
>   Even when these bug fixes change the apps behavior triggering
>   early exits (compared to previous versions of the apps), as bug
>   fixes, they do not qualify as behavior changes that require an
>   explicit OMC approval.
> Proposed by Nicola Tuveri
> Public: yes
> opened: 2020-11-30

Re: OTC VOTE: Fixing missing failure exit status is a bug fix

[Richard Levitte]

+1

On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 13:03:15 +0100,
Nicola Tuveri wrote:
> 
> Vote background
> ---
> 
> This follows up on a [previous proposal] that was abandoned in favor of
> an OMC vote on the behavior change introduced in [PR#13359].
> Within today's OTC meeting this was further discussed with the attending
> members that also sit in the OMC.
> 
> The suggestion was to improve the separation of the OTC and OMC domains
> here, by having a more generic OTC vote to qualify as bug fixes the
> changes to let any OpenSSL app return an (early) failure exit status
> when a called function fails.
> 
> The idea is that, if we agree on this technical definition, then no OMC
> vote to allow a behavior change in the apps would be required in
> general, unless, on a case-by-case basis, the "OMC hold" process is
> invoked for whatever reason on the specific bug fix, triggering the
> usual OMC decision process.
> 
> [previous proposal]:
> 
> [PR#13359]: 
> 
> 
> 
> Vote text
> -
> 
> topic: In the context of the OpenSSL apps, the OTC qualifies as bug
>fixes the changes to return a failure exit status when a called
>function fails with an unhandled return value.
>Even when these bug fixes change the apps behavior triggering
>early exits (compared to previous versions of the apps), as bug
>fixes, they do not qualify as behavior changes that require an
>explicit OMC approval.
> Proposed by Nicola Tuveri
> Public: yes
> opened: 2020-11-30
> 
-- 
Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/

Re: OTC VOTE: Fixing missing failure exit status is a bug fix

[Tim Hudson]

+1

On Mon, 30 Nov 2020, 10:03 pm Nicola Tuveri,  wrote:

> Vote background
> ---
>
> This follows up on a [previous proposal] that was abandoned in favor of
> an OMC vote on the behavior change introduced in [PR#13359].
> Within today's OTC meeting this was further discussed with the attending
> members that also sit in the OMC.
>
> The suggestion was to improve the separation of the OTC and OMC domains
> here, by having a more generic OTC vote to qualify as bug fixes the
> changes to let any OpenSSL app return an (early) failure exit status
> when a called function fails.
>
> The idea is that, if we agree on this technical definition, then no OMC
> vote to allow a behavior change in the apps would be required in
> general, unless, on a case-by-case basis, the "OMC hold" process is
> invoked for whatever reason on the specific bug fix, triggering the
> usual OMC decision process.
>
> [previous proposal]:
> 
> [PR#13359]: 
>
>
>
> Vote text
> -
>
> topic: In the context of the OpenSSL apps, the OTC qualifies as bug
>fixes the changes to return a failure exit status when a called
>function fails with an unhandled return value.
>Even when these bug fixes change the apps behavior triggering
>early exits (compared to previous versions of the apps), as bug
>fixes, they do not qualify as behavior changes that require an
>explicit OMC approval.
> Proposed by Nicola Tuveri
> Public: yes
> opened: 2020-11-30
>

Re: OTC VOTE: Fixing missing failure exit status is a bug fix

[Tomas Mraz]

+1

On Mon, 2020-11-30 at 14:03 +0200, Nicola Tuveri wrote:
> Vote background
> ---
> 
> This follows up on a [previous proposal] that was abandoned in favor
> of
> an OMC vote on the behavior change introduced in [PR#13359].
> Within today's OTC meeting this was further discussed with the
> attending
> members that also sit in the OMC.
> 
> The suggestion was to improve the separation of the OTC and OMC
> domains
> here, by having a more generic OTC vote to qualify as bug fixes the
> changes to let any OpenSSL app return an (early) failure exit status
> when a called function fails.
> 
> The idea is that, if we agree on this technical definition, then no
> OMC
> vote to allow a behavior change in the apps would be required in
> general, unless, on a case-by-case basis, the "OMC hold" process is
> invoked for whatever reason on the specific bug fix, triggering the
> usual OMC decision process.
> 
> [previous proposal]:
> <
> https://www.mail-archive.com/openssl-project@openssl.org/msg02241.html
> >
> [PR#13359]: 
> 
> 
> 
> Vote text
> -
> 
> topic: In the context of the OpenSSL apps, the OTC qualifies as bug
>fixes the changes to return a failure exit status when a
> called
>function fails with an unhandled return value.
>Even when these bug fixes change the apps behavior triggering
>early exits (compared to previous versions of the apps), as
> bug
>fixes, they do not qualify as behavior changes that require an
>explicit OMC approval.
> Proposed by Nicola Tuveri
> Public: yes
> opened: 2020-11-30
-- 
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: OTC VOTE: Fixing missing failure exit status is a bug fix

[Dr. Matthias St. Pierre]

+1

> -Original Message-
> From: openssl-project  On Behalf Of 
> Nicola Tuveri
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 1:03 PM
> To: OpenSSL Project 
> Subject: OTC VOTE: Fixing missing failure exit status is a bug fix
> 
> Vote background
> ---
> 
> This follows up on a [previous proposal] that was abandoned in favor of
> an OMC vote on the behavior change introduced in [PR#13359].
> Within today's OTC meeting this was further discussed with the attending
> members that also sit in the OMC.
> 
> The suggestion was to improve the separation of the OTC and OMC domains
> here, by having a more generic OTC vote to qualify as bug fixes the
> changes to let any OpenSSL app return an (early) failure exit status
> when a called function fails.
> 
> The idea is that, if we agree on this technical definition, then no OMC
> vote to allow a behavior change in the apps would be required in
> general, unless, on a case-by-case basis, the "OMC hold" process is
> invoked for whatever reason on the specific bug fix, triggering the
> usual OMC decision process.
> 
> [previous proposal]:
> 
> [PR#13359]: 
> 
> 
> 
> Vote text
> -
> 
> topic: In the context of the OpenSSL apps, the OTC qualifies as bug
>fixes the changes to return a failure exit status when a called
>function fails with an unhandled return value.
>Even when these bug fixes change the apps behavior triggering
>early exits (compared to previous versions of the apps), as bug
>fixes, they do not qualify as behavior changes that require an
>explicit OMC approval.
> Proposed by Nicola Tuveri
> Public: yes
> opened: 2020-11-30



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: OTC VOTE: Fixing missing failure exit status is a bug fix

[Dr Paul Dale]

+1

Pauli
-- 
Dr Paul Dale | Distinguished Architect | Cryptographic Foundations 
Phone +61 7 3031 7217
Oracle Australia




> On 30 Nov 2020, at 10:03 pm, Nicola Tuveri  wrote:
> 
> Vote background
> ---
> 
> This follows up on a [previous proposal] that was abandoned in favor of
> an OMC vote on the behavior change introduced in [PR#13359].
> Within today's OTC meeting this was further discussed with the attending
> members that also sit in the OMC.
> 
> The suggestion was to improve the separation of the OTC and OMC domains
> here, by having a more generic OTC vote to qualify as bug fixes the
> changes to let any OpenSSL app return an (early) failure exit status
> when a called function fails.
> 
> The idea is that, if we agree on this technical definition, then no OMC
> vote to allow a behavior change in the apps would be required in
> general, unless, on a case-by-case basis, the "OMC hold" process is
> invoked for whatever reason on the specific bug fix, triggering the
> usual OMC decision process.
> 
> [previous proposal]:
>   >
> [PR#13359]: 
>   >
> 
> 
> 
> Vote text
> -
> 
> topic: In the context of the OpenSSL apps, the OTC qualifies as bug
>   fixes the changes to return a failure exit status when a called
>   function fails with an unhandled return value.
>   Even when these bug fixes change the apps behavior triggering
>   early exits (compared to previous versions of the apps), as bug
>   fixes, they do not qualify as behavior changes that require an
>   explicit OMC approval.
> Proposed by Nicola Tuveri
> Public: yes
> opened: 2020-11-30