[openssl-project] Issues review

[Benjamin Kaduk]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:20:20PM +0000, Matt Caswell wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23/01/18 20:55, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 06:11:50PM +0000, Matt Caswell wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 are still supported so issues against those milestones
> >> are still relevant. They are *not* relevant to the 1.1.1 release
> >> timetable though (which is why I started this exercise). Consider an
> >> issues against the 1.1.0 milestone to mean, relevant to the next 1.1.0
> >> letter release.
> > 
> > That's great if that's the intent, but I don't think that the
> > current application of those tags is consistent with the above
> > description.  For example, #1418 is a somewhat abstract question of
> > what it means for acertificate to be self-signed, yet has the 1.0.2
> > milestone, when (to me) 1.2.0 would seem more appropriate.
> 
> That *is* the intent. What I've done here is *triage* - spending a few
> minutes on each one to assess the correct milestone. It would not
> surprise me to learn that, having done that for over 380 issues, we
> might have come to a different assessment on a few of them. :-)

Understood.  Hopefully the bits I did last week helped with the
triage.

I mostly was just not sure if this has always been the policy, or if
there was a period of time when things were much more haphazard as
we first started using github.  Going forward I expect that we'll be
in better shape.

> To be absolutely sure though I just re-reviewed all of those issues
> against the 1.0.2 and 1.1.0 milestones (there weren't that many of
> them), to make sure I got them right. I made 2 or 3 changes including to
> the issue you highlighted (moving it to the "Post 1.1.1" milestone).

Thank you; I do appreciate it!

> Feel free to make any other adjustments you think might be necessary as
> you come across them.

Okay.  I may try to look at the 1.0.2 and 1.1.0 issues, but really
ought to finish up the draft-23 support PR first :)

> Although there may be some disagreements on a few of the issues. I am
> confident that the milestones as they are currently set are broadly
> correct - and a good basis for planning.

We should probably revive the release timeline/planning thread now,
yes.

-Ben