Backports to 1.1.1 and what is allowed
nic.tuv at gmail.com
Thu Jun 25 16:26:43 UTC 2020
Sorry yes, I meant to refer to the open PR with the s390 support, I picked
the wrong number!
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 17:54 Matt Caswell <matt at openssl.org> wrote:
> On 25/06/2020 15:33, Nicola Tuveri wrote:
> > In light of how the discussion evolved I would say that not only there
> > is consensus on supporting the definition of a detailed policy on
> > backports and the definitions of what are the requirements for regular
> > releases vs LTS releases (other than the longer support timeframe),
> > but also highlights a need to do it sooner rather than later!
> > This seems a job for the OMC, as it falls under:
> >> makes all decisions regarding management and strategic direction of the
> project; including:
> >> - business requirements;
> >> - feature requirements;
> >> - platform requirements;
> >> - roadmap requirements and priority;
> >> - end-of-life decisions;
> >> - release timing and requirement decisions;
> > My contribution to the discussion is to ask if the OMC has plans for
> > addressing this in the very short term.
> I think its unlikely we are going to get to a policy in the short term.
> It seems to me we are still some way away from a consensus here.
> > If working on a policy is going to be a medium-term effort, maybe it
> > would be opportune to call an OTC vote specific to #11968 under the
> > current release requirements defined by the OMC (or lack thereof).
> 11968 is already merged and, AFAIK, no one has proposed reverting it. If
> such a PR was raised then a vote might be a way forward for it.
> 11188 is the more pressing problem because that is currently unmerged
> and stuck. That has an OTC hold on it (placed there by me), so an OTC
> vote seems appropriate. If a vote is held it should be to decide whether
> backporting it is consistent with our current understanding of the
> policy such as it is. It is for the OMC to decide whether a different
> policy should be introduced at some point in the future.
> > We already saw a few comments in favor of evaluating backporting
> > #11968 as an exception, in light of the supporting arguments, even if
> > it was in conflict with the current policy understanding or the
> > upcoming policy formulation.
> > So if we could swiftly agree on this being an OTC or OMC vote, I would
> > urge to have a dedicated discussion/vote specific to #11968, while
> > more detailed policies and definitions are in the process of being
> > formulated.
> > - What is the consensus on splitting the 2 discussions?
> > - If splitting the discussions, is deciding on #11968 an OTC or OMC
> > Cheers,
> > Nicola
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openssl-project