Backports to 1.1.1 and what is allowed

Tomas Mraz tmraz at
Mon Jun 22 06:11:12 UTC 2020

On Sun, 2020-06-21 at 14:34 -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:11:04AM +1000, Tim Hudson wrote:
> > I suggest everyone takes a read through
> > as to what LTS is
> > actually
> > meant to be focused on.
> You may have hit on a key aspect of how we are disconnected, here.
> I was under the impression that (as is the case for many OSS
> projects), the
> fact that 1.1.1 is an LTS release means that we enter a separate "LTS
> mode"
> at the "beginning of a long-term support period" (as Wikipedia puts
> it) but
> that there is some period prior to the start of the long-term support
> period for which the STS policies apply.
> So, are you considering that 1.1.1 is now, and has always been, in
> LTS mode
> because it is marked as an "LTS release"?  Or is there a separate STS
> period before it transitions to "LTS mode"?

In my opinion the 1.1.1 should not enter such strongly restricted phase
earlier than after the 3.0 is released.

Ideally, if we had releases based on some predictable cadence and not
rather feature based ones, we should have 3 active branches - master
for development of new features, one branch with bug fixes and even
non-invasive performance fixes, and one branch for LTS where only
security fixes with above than low severity and severe bug fixes would
be applied.

Tomáš Mráz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
                                              Turkish proverb
[You'll know whether the road is wrong if you carefully listen to your

More information about the openssl-project mailing list