[openssl-project] GitHub milestone for 1.1.1

[Richard Levitte]

Andy has indicated that the rather special construction to get command line C macro definitions and include paths specs collected in one place (*) is perhaps too special and could be handle by parsing CPPFLAGS and extra multiple definitions to get them collected in one spot.

I have some ideas on how to do that, but wonder if that would be considered a new feature with regards to the beta release (we can stop talking now in that case) or if this would be considered a fix. That will decide if it's even worth an effort.

Note: this affects VMS only, at least re make variables.

Cheers
Richard

(*) Unix and windows handles those with -D and -I flags that can be spread out all over the command line. VMS command lines work a bit differently, and the C compiler complies with that standard, so *all* macros must be collected in *one* qualifiers (VMS terminology where the Unix guy would say "flag" or possibly "option"), like this:

     /DEFINE=(MACRO1, MACRO2="Foo", "Macro3=bar")

The same goes for include paths, similarly collected in the qualifier /INCLUDE


Matt Caswell <matt at openssl.org> skrev: (19 mars 2018 10:12:06 CET)
>
>
>On 19/03/18 08:27, Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> in view of the upcoming beta release and the release strategy (see
>> below) it is a little bit disturbing that our GitHub milestone for
>1.1.1
>> <https://github.com/openssl/openssl/milestone/9> shows only 30%
>> completion. How are we going to deal with this?
>
>Up until now, understandably, people have been focusing on getting the
>required features in. My expectation is that, once we're past the beta
>release and new features are no longer allowed for 1.1.1, focus will
>shift to closing off as many of the open issues/PRs as possible.
>
>> Shouldn't the PR's and
>> issues be examined and categorized into bugs and features? The former
>> could still be merged during beta, but what happens to the latter?
>What
>> is with outstanding documentation (e.g. #5461, #5629), will it be
>> treated like a bugfix and be mergeable past the beta freeze?
>
>Mostly, I think what remains are bugs and not features. If there are
>features then no one cared enough about them to push them forward to
>get
>into 1.1.1 and so we should reclassify them with a post-1.1.1
>milestone.
>In some exceptional cases, if someone can make a good enough case, we
>might consider merging them during the beta - but that might take an
>omc
>vote, so the case would have to be very strong.
>
>We have always treated missing documentation as a bug so I don't see a
>problem there.
>
>Matt
>
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
>> 
>> --
>> We have defined the following release criteria for 1.1.1:
>> 
>> 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
>> https://www.openssl.org/policies/releasestrat.html
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.