[openssl-dev] Blog post; changing in email, crypto policy, etc

Dr. Matthias St. Pierre Matthias.St.Pierre at ncp-e.com
Wed Jan 24 17:55:32 UTC 2018



On 24.01.2018 18:32, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>> On Jan 24, 2018, at 9:27 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr at sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> email clients are designed to handle hundreds to thousands of messages
>>> a day, Github UI isn't
> Indeed email is best for informal ad-hoc back and forth threaded
> discussion, while Github et. al. are for issue tracking.
>
> If there's a clear problem that requires tracking and resolution,
> then the right forum is Github.  If there's a topic to discuss,
> we have openssl-users.  Most openssl-dev threads were more
> appropriate for openssl-users.
>
> So I'm not convinced we need two free-form discussion lists, but
> concur that if it is discussion one wants, then email clearly
> superior to Github issue tracking.  The key question is whether
> openssl-users suffices to meet that need.
>

Although GitHub issues provide nice features like markdown and
syntax highlighting, I agree with Viktor that in general mailing lists are
much more suitable for general discussion. If nothing else, then because
they are open for everyone to read and search (via the mail archives)
and don't require a login.

So IMHO GitHub issues should remain for topics like bug reports and
specific discussions related to current pull requests.

As for the two mailing lists openssl-users and openssl-dev: It was always
my understanding that the former was for usability questions starting
from newbie questions up to very sophisticated subjects, whereas
openssl-dev was for discussion around the development process itself.
If we agree that mailing lists are preferrable to GitHub threads, then we
should not close down openssl-dev. Because openssl-project is readonly
for most developers and I don't think it would be a good idea
to join openssl-dev and openssl-users.

Matthias



More information about the openssl-dev mailing list