[openssl-project] NEW: A proposal for an updated OpenSSL version scheme (v3.0-dev)

Richard Levitte levitte at openssl.org
Mon Sep 24 16:14:58 UTC 2018

In message <dd3080967e5343858f0281fd02cdb814 at Ex13.ncp.local> on Mon, 24 Sep 2018 16:09:07 +0000, "Dr. Matthias St. Pierre" <Matthias.St.Pierre at ncp-e.com> said:

> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: openssl-project <openssl-project-bounces at openssl.org> Im Auftrag von Richard Levitte
> > Gesendet: Montag, 24. September 2018 17:41
> > An: openssl-project at openssl.org
> > Betreff: [openssl-project] NEW: A proposal for an updated OpenSSL version scheme (v3.0-dev)
> > 
> > Following the discussion that we had on the previous documents and on
> > all the input I got, I created a new version (v3.0-dev) for this proposal:
> > 
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6l7VYn176JKzOtERdp9OG0HcyhnJZnVdRLD07L_1wE/
> > 
> > It's written from the point of view that the comment in opensslv.h and
> > the documentation in OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER.pod are correct as to what
> > the components in the version number are, and that we simply didn't do
> > as the docs said since 1.0.0.  So the idea is to simply reset, and
> > then synthesize the value of existing macros (especially
> > OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER) to be safe to use as we have observed that
> > users do.
> I'm not sure about the implication of the new document v3 on the two
> proposals from document v2.  Does it mean you dropped your own
> proposal in favour of Tim's proposal? Or will there be two competing
> proposals, each described in its own document?

v3 is a new version that replaces v2.  So yeah, I'm going with Tim's
proposal.  That takes us on a path where we don't try to preserve
historical habits ad nauseum, but rather do a good enough job for a
period of time while fully switching to semantic versioning.


Richard Levitte         levitte at openssl.org
OpenSSL Project         http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/

More information about the openssl-project mailing list