FWIW, I am NOT proposing that. Nor would I have the right to do so.
> On Oct 10, 2018, at 3:50 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2018-10-10 14:01, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:45 PM Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I thought the whole intent for a quick 2.4.36 was for TLSv1.3
>>> support.
>>> If that's not ready for prime time, then why a release??
>> AIUI, it isn't that httpd isn't ready for release, or even httpd-test
>> framework.
>> Until all the upstream CPAN modules behave reasonably with openssl
>> 1.1.1
>> we will continue to see odd test results.
>> It was my hope we would push this out as 2.5.1-alpha, as now synced
>> with 2.4.x branch, and let the eager early adopters help us uncover
>> any
>> unforeseen issues. Think we have a handle on, and have addressed
>> the anticipated issues.
>
> Right, my understanding is that this is more around the test suite and how it
> does the testing rather than the project itself. If that's not the case, and
> httpd itself isn't ready, I'm OK with aborting the release process.
>
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri
