[openssl-project] A proposal for an updated OpenSSL version scheme (v2)

Tim Hudson tjh at cryptsoft.com
Fri Sep 21 15:27:28 UTC 2018

On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 1:16 AM Viktor Dukhovni <openssl-users at dukhovni.org>

> > On Sep 21, 2018, at 11:00 AM, Tim Hudson <tjh at cryptsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > If you repeat that in semantic versioning concepts just using the labels
> for mapping you get:
> > - what is the major version number - the answer is clearly "1".
> > - what is the minor version number - the answer is clearly "0"
> > - what is the fix version number - there is no such thing
> > - what is the patch version number - the answer is clearly "2" (reusing
> the fix version)
> I'm afraid that's where you're simply wrong.  Ever since 1.0.0, OpenSSL
> has promised (and I think delivered) ABI stability for the *minor* version
> and feature stability (bug fixes only) for the patch letters.  Therefore,
> the semantic version number of "1.0.2a" is "1.0", its minor number is 2
> and its fix number is 1 ("a").

No it isn't - as you note that isn't a valid mapping - 1.0 isn't a semantic
version and there is no such thing as a fix number,
You get three concepts and then on top of that the pre-release and the

Semantic versioning is about the API not the ABI.

So we could redefine what we have been telling our user all along and
combine our current major+minor in a new major version.
Making 1.0.2a be 10.2.0 in semantic version terms.

We cannot remove the current major version number - as that concept exists
and we have used it all along.
We don't just get to tell our users for the last 20+ years what we called
the major version (which was 0 for the first half and 1 for the second
half) doesn't exist.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-project/attachments/20180922/d6861568/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the openssl-project mailing list