[openssl-project] Code Repo

[Matt Caswell]

Without stating an opinion either way - some stats:

PRs with 1.1.1 milestone: 57
Issues with 1.1.1 milestone: 160
Coverity Issues: 68

All of the above need to be resolved (possibly by deferring them), plus
any new ones that get raised in the meantime, before we can release.

Matt


On 20/03/18 14:58, Salz, Rich wrote:
> We still have a lot of work to do to meet our release goals. It was
> really bad last time and we definitely lost our focus multiple times.
> 
>  
> 
> If in two weeks we get everything done and we’re just sitting aroun
> waiting for the IETF to publish, great.  But if not, I strongly believe
> the only thing we should be working on is the release.
> 
>  
> 
> EVERYONE can do code reviews. 
> 
>  
> 
> *From: *Tim Hudson <tjh at cryptsoft.com>
> *Reply-To: *"openssl-project at openssl.org" <openssl-project at openssl.org>
> *Date: *Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 10:27 AM
> *To: *"openssl-project at openssl.org" <openssl-project at openssl.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [openssl-project] Code Repo
> 
>  
> 
> We have been holding off on post-1.1.1 feature development for a long
> time now - on the grounds that TLSv1.3 was just around the corner etc
> and the release was close - and then we formed a release plan which we
> pushed back a week.
> 
>  
> 
> It is long overdue that we get to start moving those other things
> forward in my view.
> 
> We had planned to start moving around a pile of stuff for FIPS related
> items - and keeping master locked for API changes really works against that.
> 
>  
> 
> There are a large range of PRs which we pushed off as
> must-wait-for-post-1.1.1 and those are things that remain stalled as
> long as we keep master locked down.
> 
>  
> 
> The release for 1.1.1 should be pretty close to "complete" as such -
> looking at the plans - as with no new features going in the work
> remaining should be relatively staight forward.
> 
> Rich's suggestions I think tend to indicate more  work going into the
> release that planned - and we had said we were creating this branch -
> and deviating from that at the last minute isn't really how we shuold be
> making decisions as a project.
> 
> Some stuff that would normally be in a banch now isn't ... as Richard
> noted in the PR. 
> 
> 
> Tim.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Matt Caswell
> <matt at openssl.org<mailto:matt at openssl.org>> wrote:
> 
>     The beta release is now complete.
> 
>     Important:
> 
>     We did *not* create the OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable branch as planned (see
>     https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5690<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openssl_openssl_pull_5690&d=DwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=4LM0GbR0h9Fvx86FtsKI-w&m=9Agx-vYK5V64ygDZaA-VXF-_J0Toc8LHurSEHwYFftg&s=_K1qiQSxWe1g7tN6OWnwtKdRuWDwZIPWo08A7cQTlGA&e=>for
>     the discussion that led
>     to that decision). For now the release was done from the master branch
>     in the same way as we did for the previous alpha releases. However the
>     feature freeze *is* in force. Therefore no features can be pushed into
>     the repo until such time as the branch is created. All commits to master
>     must be suitable for inclusion in the 1.1.1 release.
> 
>     Matt
>     _______________________________________________
>     openssl-project mailing list
>     openssl-project at openssl.org<mailto:openssl-project at openssl.org>
>     https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mta.openssl.org_mailman_listinfo_openssl-2Dproject&d=DwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=4LM0GbR0h9Fvx86FtsKI-w&m=9Agx-vYK5V64ygDZaA-VXF-_J0Toc8LHurSEHwYFftg&s=wYNJwU48t3cQS2G7emoGFewD3Bc_KuMuT00Q1v_lCuM&e=>
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openssl-project mailing list
> openssl-project at openssl.org
> https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
>