I have always implicitly assumed Matt view, but I am happy to conform to
what the consensus is.
I believe this discussion is very useful and could contribute a new entry
in the commiter guidelines.
On Fri, May 24, 2019, 07:21 Matt Caswell wrote:
> On 24/05/2019 15:10, Richard
I would like to propose as a date for the OTC meeting somewhere close to
the projected release date for 3.0alpha1.
Ideally it would be nice if OMC and OTC could coordinate the dates to be
close enough to ease the discussion of agenda items that might require
coordination between OMC and OTC.
If ASAN is too slow to run in the CI should we restore the previous
homemade checks for memory leaks as an alternative to be run in regular CI
runs and leave ASAN builds to run-checker on the master branch only?
Here is another idea that would be interesting if we restore the previous
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 14:00, Matt Caswell wrote:
> To be clear the build that is timing out uses *msan* not *asan*.
As I understand it msan detects unitialised reads. whereas asan detects
> memory corruption, buffer overflows, use-after-free bugs, and memory leaks.
> The previous
I can agree it is a good idea to always require backport as a separate PR,
with the following conditions:
- unless it's a 1.1.1 only issue, we MUST always wait to open the
backport-to-111 PR until after the master PR has been approved and merged
(to avoid splitting the discussions among different
I think we changed enough things in the test infrastructure that there is a
chance of creating subtle failures by merging cherry-picked commits from
>From the burden perspective, from my point of view having a separate PR
that ran all the CI without failures is actually a
I would be interested in seeing a PR to see what enabling these tests would
I believe we do indeed need to test more thoroughly to ensure we are not
breaking the engine API!
On Thu, May 7, 2020, 21:08 Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> Let me draw your attention
Sorry yes, I meant to refer to the open PR with the s390 support, I picked
the wrong number!
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 17:54 Matt Caswell wrote:
> On 25/06/2020 15:33, Nicola Tuveri wrote:
> > In light of how the discussion evolved I would say that not only there
> > is co
In light of how the discussion evolved I would say that not only there
is consensus on supporting the definition of a detailed policy on
backports and the definitions of what are the requirements for regular
releases vs LTS releases (other than the longer support timeframe),
but also highlights a
I believe the OMC is called into action as some name changes might be seen
as breaking API or ABI compatibility and that has been considered so far as
part of the first item in the OMC prerogatives list.
The matter of OMC Vs OTC vote also depends on what kind of hold Tim is
applying with his - 1:
Yes, I also got that since I updated my git installation from the upstream
With recent versions of git this warning has been showing for months
already, but I don't know enough about it to propose a fix!
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020, 12:16 Matt Caswell wrote:
> After upgrading
On Sat, Sep 5, 2020, 14:01 Tim Hudson wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 8:45 PM Nicola Tuveri wrote:
>> Or is your point that we are writing in C, all the arguments are
>> positional, none is ever really optional, there is no difference between
>> passing a `(void*)
On Sat, Sep 5, 2020, 12:13 Tim Hudson wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 6:38 PM Nicola Tuveri wrote:
>> In most (if not all) cases in our functions, both libctx and propquery
>> are optional arguments, as we have global defaults for them based on the
Thanks Tim for the writeup!
I tend to agree with Tim's conclusions in general, but I fear the analysis
here is missing an important premise that could influence the outcome of
In most (if not all) cases in our functions, both libctx and propquery are
optional arguments, as we have
Matthias overcredits me: I just wanted to know his opinion about when we
should use labels and when milestones (and that is why I wrote to him
off-list, as a very confused and shy pupil asking a sensei for wisdom
All the alleged convincing was self-inflicted :P
And now that my
s for the official documentation you
> mentioned, are you talking about this one?
> From: Nicola Tuveri
> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 4:17 PM
> To: Dr. Matthias St. Pierre
> Cc: openssl-project@openssl
+1, as expressed during the f2f meeting.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 15:02 Dr. Matthias St. Pierre <
> topic: Accept the OTC voting policy as defined:
>The proposer of a vote is ultimately responsible for updating the
Mail list logo