[openssl-project] 1.1.1 Release timetable (again)
Matt Caswell
matt at openssl.org
Wed Jan 24 20:48:54 UTC 2018
On 24/01/18 19:12, Salz, Rich wrote:
> A monthly release cadence for beta seems too long. I would prefer two weeks. And we keep doing that until TLS 1.3 is published.
That might be ok. As a technical issue though we can only have a maximum
of 14 alpha/beta releases (due to the format of OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER
in opensslv.h). If we were to do a release every 2 weeks starting on
14th Feb, that would mean the last beta we could possibly do would be on
15th August. If there is a risk that the TLSv1.3 publication could go
beyond that date then we would be stuck.
Matt
>
>
> On 1/24/18, 12:32 PM, "Matt Caswell" <matt at openssl.org> wrote:
>
> Reviving the 1.1.1 release timetable discussion now that we have a
> clearer idea of the scope of outstanding issues/PRs.
>
> Here is my updated straw man proposal for the 1.1.1 release timetable.
> The only changes to this from my original proposal is to shift the dates
> (because in my original proposal we would already have done the first
> alpha) and I have relabelled the second release as a "beta". My original
> plan called this an alpha with feature freeze at the same time, which
> people (vehemently) objected to. :-)
>
> 14th February 2018, alpha release 1 (pre1)
> 14th March 2018, beta release 1 (pre2)
> OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable created (feature freeze)
> master becomes basis for 1.1.2 or 1.2.0 (TBD)
> 11th March 2018, beta release 2 (pre3)
> 9th May 2018, 1.1.1 public release (assuming TLSv1.3 RFC is published)
>
> An alpha release means:
> - Not (necessarily) feature complete
> - Not necessarily all new APIs in place yet
>
> A beta release means:
> - Feature complete/Feature freeze
> - Bug fixes only
>
> My proposed release criteria are:
> - All open github issues/PRs older than 2 weeks at the time of release
> to be assessed for relevance to 1.1.1. Any flagged with the 1.1.1
> milestone to be closed (see below)
> - Clean builds in Travis and Appveyor for two days
> - run-checker.sh to be showing as clean 2 days before release
> - No open Coverity issues (not flagged as "False Positive" or "Ignore")
> - TLSv1.3 RFC published
>
> Valid reasons for closing an issue/PR with a 1.1.1 milestone might be:
> - We have just now or sometime in the past fixed the issue
> - Unable to reproduce (following discussion with original reporter if
> possible)
> - Working as intended
> - Deliberate decision not to fix until a later release (this wouldn't
> actually close the issue/PR but change the milestone instead)
> - Not enough information and unable to contact reporter
> - etc
>
> This plan gives us 2 months from feature freeze to get all issues and
> PRs with the 1.1.1 milestone closed (or assigned to a different
> milestone). Currently this stands at 141 issues and 55 PRs. In practice
> I think the only way we get through that lot is to make explicit
> decisions not to fix/implement some of them and change the milestone.
> But I think making explicit decisions about these rather than just
> letting them drift indefinitely is a good thing.
>
> If the TLSv1.3 RFC is not published by the time we are ready to release,
> or we haven't made the progress we want on the other release criteria
> then we can add additional betas as we see fit until such time as we are
> ready.
>
> Matt
> _______________________________________________
> openssl-project mailing list
> openssl-project at openssl.org
> https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openssl-project mailing list
> openssl-project at openssl.org
> https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
>
More information about the openssl-project
mailing list