[openssl-project] platforms

Tue Jan 9 10:08:34 UTC 2018

Ah, I forgot to refresh my reading of platform policy.  Ok then!

In message <CAHEJ-S6q6JaNLps6cwH7yGKTUjt=H51dsHZx+u7-n=p_mX=2kA at mail.gmail.com> on Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:06:10 +0000, Tim Hudson <tjh at cryptsoft.com> said:

tjh> We made and agreed to a set of categories and we should use what we agreed to - rather than
tjh> something else.
tjh> 
tjh> Introducing different terms I think does not make sense. Using the ones we have defined does.
tjh> 
tjh> Tim.
tjh> 
tjh> On 9 Jan. 2018 7:57 pm, "Richard Levitte" <levitte at openssl.org> wrote:
tjh> 
tjh>  In message
tjh>  <CAHEJ-S6JWVUFHMpjZQOguOqGRdQD792eyO68_n_Px90hM6KKRA at mail.gmail.com> on
tjh>  Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:49:36 +1000, Tim Hudson <tjh at cryptsoft.com> said:
tjh> 
tjh>  tjh> Given the discussion on PR#5035 it is time to split 10-main.conf into three groups to
tjh>  match the
tjh>  tjh> platform policy and roadmap in my view.
tjh>  tjh>
tjh>  tjh> 10-primary
tjh>  tjh> 20-secondary
tjh>  tjh> 30-community
tjh>  tjh> 40-unknown
tjh>  tjh> 50-deprecated
tjh> 
tjh>  Arbitrary numbers will always be arbitrary. We've already started
tjh>  with new community contributed config targets in the 50 group, why
tjh>  change that?
tjh> 
tjh>  Also, there's no real reason to have one big monolithic file per
tjh>  group. As you can notice from said 50 group, we've already divided
tjh>  them in smaller things... per platform family of sorts, maybe?
tjh> 
tjh>  So may I suggest that we use the groups 10-49 for stuff "known by us"
tjh>  (i.e. primary and secondary), 50-89 for "not so known by us"
tjh>  (i.e. community provided, unknown and deprecated), leaving 00-09 for
tjh>  base templates (*) and 90-99 for "personal" (i.e. team stuff we choose
tjh>  to share as well as simply leaving space for those who want to
tjh>  maintain their own inside their copy of our source)?
tjh> 
tjh>  Finally, I think we used the term "legacy" rather than "deprecated" at
tjh>  some point. Would you mind "legacy"?
tjh> 
tjh>  tjh> Most of the current 10-main should move into 40-unknown - that is
tjh>  tjh> the reality of our actual context.
tjh> 
tjh>  Agreed.
tjh> 
tjh>  tjh> See https://www.openssl.org/policies/platformpolicy.html for the
tjh>  tjh> policy and https://www.openssl.org/policies/roadmap.html where we
tjh>  tjh> stated that this would be completed by the next feature release
tjh>  tjh> (i.e. I think that was 1.1.0 at the time but even if we looked
tjh>  tjh> from the point of view of "now" that would be 1.1.1). We missed
tjh>  tjh> that timeline.
tjh> 
tjh>  The statements about next feature release were added as off this
tjh>  commit in openssl-web:
tjh> 
tjh>  commit 1bb9590bf583f21dc71b0adf83062f38e589644e
tjh>  Author: Rich Salz <rsalz at akamai.com>
tjh>  Date: Mon Oct 24 18:03:32 2016 -0400
tjh> 
tjh>  Add policy docs from 2016 F2F, per vote.
tjh> 
tjh>  So this is post 1.1.0 stuff
tjh> 
tjh>  tjh> There should be none of the existing 50-<target> items and I also
tjh>  tjh> think 90-team needs some work too - but that is separate from
tjh>  tjh> actually splitting things out into the categories we have already
tjh>  tjh> defined.
tjh> 
tjh>  I disagree about the 50 group, as already mentioned above.
tjh> 
tjh>  I find 90-team.conf *much* more questionable. If it were me, I'd toss
tjh>  the lot of what's in there, with the exception of the "dist" config
tjh>  target (it's used by the "dist" target in Makefile).
tjh> 
tjh>  tjh> Does anyone know what platform debug-erbridge is in 90-team?
tjh> 
tjh>  Not a clue. Most of the stuff in there can be traced back to what's
tjh>  in pre-1.1.0 Configure.
tjh> 
tjh>  I dug a bit, and found that it's this commit:
tjh> 
tjh>  commit d7f200779c190ba35cfa4dbd2a82587c938cd243
tjh>  Author: Felix Laurie von Massenbach <felix at erbridge.co.uk>
tjh>  AuthorDate: Mon May 26 17:19:06 2014 +0100
tjh>  Commit: Ben Laurie <ben at links.org>
tjh>  CommitDate: Sun Jun 1 15:31:26 2014 +0100
tjh> 
tjh>  Add a new target to Configure for me.
tjh> 
tjh>  tjh> I also think you need a platform "owner" or "contact" tag ...
tjh> 
tjh>  For primary stuff, that's us (i.e. The Project).
tjh>  For secondary stuff, that's us (i.e. The Project).
tjh>  For community stuff, that's the community (*).
tjh>  For unknown stuff, I don't think we'll be able to, unless a config
tjh>  target moves to a more active category.
tjh>  For legacy stuff, I have some serious doubts...
tjh> 
tjh>  (*) For community, I'm unsure about pinning this one a specific
tjh>  person. The commit message will already say (I hope) who provided it,
tjh>  but that's a shot in the moment and doesn't mean that person is
tjh>  willing to become The Responsible Person for that config target. At
tjh>  some later point in time, someone else may take up the gauntlet and
tjh>  update some config target, but that's also spur of the moment. This
tjh>  is after all the nature of FOSS community development, and I don't
tjh>  think pinning this on a single (or even a set of) person does anything
tjh>  good for it.
tjh> 
tjh>  So I think that in the end, while I can see the temptation for getting
tjh>  a sense of control, I'd rather not go there.
tjh> 
tjh>  Cheers,
tjh>  Richard
tjh> 
tjh>  --
tjh>  Richard Levitte levitte at openssl.org
tjh>  OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/
tjh>  _______________________________________________
tjh>  openssl-project mailing list
tjh>  openssl-project at openssl.org
tjh>  https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
tjh> 