[openssl-project] platforms: what do the different "classes" mean?
levitte at openssl.org
Wed Jan 10 22:53:34 UTC 2018
So your interpretation of "active support" is primarly declarative.
That's perfectly fine, and I hope others will tell us what they think,
and I hope that we will come to an agreement on the meaning.
I kinda sorta agree with you... most of all for "secondary"
classification, I'd like to see clear declarations of support.
You might note in PR #5043, however, that I haven't put down any name
for the VC and mingw config targets. The main reason is that through
Travis and Appveyor, we all get to support them (we do worry every
time they aren't green). It seems like a moot point to declare
So for the "community" classification... you see, I had it stuck in
my head that all new config targets provided by someone outside the
team would automatically end up classified "community", because it was
provided by the community... but then again, "provided" isn't the
same as "supported", and if "supported" is the primary criteria for
the "community" classification, having such config targets classified
as such, no questions asked, is clearly wrong. So we end up putting
them in "unknown" until further notice.
Sorry for babbling, I guess I needed to write it aloud to unstick my
own stuck thoughts.
Regarding intent (as you commented re Cygwin), it would seem we aren't
all clear on it (even within the OMC)... but we may be on our way to
a common view.
In message <CAHEJ-S59Kv_gpT2t640GaTJUng3i_bbr+VE5g2sGsrgEPCHCyQ at mail.gmail.com> on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:32:17 +1000, Tim Hudson <tjh at cryptsoft.com> said:
tjh> If you and or Matt are actively supporting it then it is "Secondary".
tjh> If someone who is non-OMC, non-committer steps forward to say they will support it then it is
tjh> Otherwise it is Unknown (unless we plan to deprecate it).
tjh> I have no problem with you and/or Matt and/or any OMC or committer stepping forward to place
tjh> Cygwin in the Secondary status.
tjh> But if you want it in Community then a community member has to step forward.
tjh> Although I do see that you could elect to make it Community because you support it but not
tjh> "actively" - although that wasn't the intent at all - either a team member is supporting it or a
tjh> community member is.
tjh> It wasn't intended to be a second-class level of team support.
tjh> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:17 AM, Richard Levitte <levitte at openssl.org> wrote:
tjh> Reading the platform policy (https://www.openssl.org/policies/platformpolicy.html),
tjh> the classifications seems fairly clear.
tjh> Primary: well defined
tjh> Secondary: at least one team member actively supports
tjh> Community: one or more member of the community supports
tjh> Unknown: we have no idea what the status is
tjh> Deprecated: to be removed later on
tjh> And yet, we're bickering over what status Cygwin should have in PR
tjh> #5043 (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5043). Why is that?
tjh> I'm guessing that we don't quite agree what "actively supports"
tjh> means. Is the "active" part about declaration (someone solemnly
tjh> declaring "I will support Cygwin"), or is it about action and
tjh> behavioral patterns (we do know that a few team members look after
tjh> Cygwin, although perhaps not on a daily basis).
tjh> (from my very personal point of view, I'd put Cygwin in the
tjh> "community" category, 'cause even if Matt and I do test OpenSSL on
tjh> Cygwin when we are the ones doing a release, that's also it as far as
tjh> I know... but this isn't just about my opinion, and when opinions are
tjh> clearly diverging, it's time to ask why)
tjh> Richard Levitte levitte at openssl.org
tjh> OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/
tjh> openssl-project mailing list
tjh> openssl-project at openssl.org
More information about the openssl-project