Re: 1.1.1f

2020-03-29 Thread Bernd Edlinger
gt;>>> Please also consider reverting the change for the 3.0 alpha release as >>>>>>> well, see Daniel Stenbergs comment >>>>>>> >>> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378#issuecomment-603730581 >>>>>>> < >

Re: 1.1.1f

2020-03-27 Thread Matt Caswell
There seems to be broad support for a 1.1.1f release. Unless I hear an OMC objection I will formally announce this tomorrow. Matt On 27/03/2020 00:10, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:33:40PM +, Matt Caswell wrote: > >> On 26/03/2020 23:15, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >>> On

Re: 1.1.1f

2020-03-26 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:33:40PM +, Matt Caswell wrote: > On 26/03/2020 23:15, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 09:13:32PM +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > > > >> we got into this situation because everything moves so quickly, > >> why does everyone here think we should

Re: 1.1.1f

2020-03-26 Thread Matt Caswell
On 26/03/2020 23:15, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 09:13:32PM +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >> we got into this situation because everything moves so quickly, >> why does everyone here think we should move even faster now? >> >> What is the reason for this? > > We've

Re: 1.1.1f

2020-03-26 Thread Matt Caswell
ease also consider reverting the change for the 3.0 alpha release as >>>>>>> well, see Daniel Stenbergs comment >>>>>>> >>> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378#issuecomment-603730581 >>>>>>> < >>>>>

Re: 1.1.1f

2020-03-26 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 09:13:32PM +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > we got into this situation because everything moves so quickly, > why does everyone here think we should move even faster now? > > What is the reason for this? We've published a bug-fix release (1.1.1e) that's liable to cause

Re: 1.1.1f

2020-03-26 Thread Bernd Edlinger
>> well, see Daniel Stenbergs comment >>>>>> >> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378#issuecomment-603730581 >>>>>> < >>>> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openssl_op

Re: 1.1.1f

2020-03-26 Thread Tim Hudson
sues/11378#issuecomment-603730581 > >>>> < > >> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openssl_openssl_issues_11378-23issuecomment-2D603730581=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgn

Re: 1.1.1f

2020-03-26 Thread Bernd Edlinger
ufNT40Gip4Q=djWoIIXyggxwOfbwrmYGrSJdR5tWm06IdzY9x9tDxkA= >>> >>>> >>>> Matthias >>>> >>>> >>>> *From**:* openssl-project >>> <mailto:openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org>> *On Behalf Of *Dmitry >>&

Re: 1.1.1f

2020-03-26 Thread Tim Hudson
jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=djWoIIXyggxwOfbwrmYGrSJdR5tWm06IdzY9x9tDxkA= > > > >> > >> Matthias > >> > >> > >> *From**:* openssl-project >> <mailto:openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org&

Re: 1.1.1f

2020-03-26 Thread Matt Caswell
OfbwrmYGrSJdR5tWm06IdzY9x9tDxkA=> >>   >> Matthias >>   >>   >> *From**:* openssl-project > <mailto:openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org>> *On Behalf Of *Dmitry >> Belyavsky >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:48 PM >> *To:* Matt Caswell

Re: 1.1.1f

2020-03-26 Thread Short, Todd
gt; > > From: openssl-project On Behalf Of > Dmitry Belyavsky > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:48 PM > To: Matt Caswell > Cc: openssl-project@openssl.org > Subject: Re: 1.1.1f > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:14 PM Matt Caswell <mailto:m...@opens

Re: 1.1.1f

2020-03-26 Thread Bernd Edlinger
On 3/26/20 3:14 PM, Matt Caswell wrote: > The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has > resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch > (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400). > > Given that this seems to have broken quite a bit of stuff, I

RE: 1.1.1f

2020-03-26 Thread Dr. Matthias St. Pierre
> Please also consider reverting the change for the 3.0 alpha release as well, > see Daniel Stenbergs comment > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378#issuecomment-603730581 Never mind my last comment. I noticed a lot of discussion has been going on in issue #11378 and I was not quite

RE: 1.1.1f

2020-03-26 Thread Dr. Matthias St. Pierre
:48 PM To: Matt Caswell Cc: openssl-project@openssl.org Subject: Re: 1.1.1f On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:14 PM Matt Caswell mailto:m...@openssl.org>> wrote: The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch

Re: 1.1.1f

2020-03-26 Thread Dmitry Belyavsky
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:14 PM Matt Caswell wrote: > The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has > resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch > (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400). > > Given that this seems to have broken quite a bit

Re: 1.1.1f

2020-03-26 Thread Tomas Mraz
On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 14:14 +, Matt Caswell wrote: > The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has > resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch > (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400). > > Given that this seems to have broken quite a

Re: 1.1.1f

2020-03-26 Thread Bernd Edlinger
On 3/26/20 3:14 PM, Matt Caswell wrote: > The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has > resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch > (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400). > > Given that this seems to have broken quite a bit of stuff,