On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Julien Pauli <jpa...@php.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Daniel Lowrey <rdlow...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> >> Hi, > >> >> > >> >> That's a bad thing we need to fix ASAP. > >> >> > >> >> I think for 5.6.1 we'll revert it , if not, we'll need an RC2, which > >> >> is something we usually don't do (but as this could involve security, > >> >> we may do it). > >> >> The fix can be merged to 5.5.18RC1, next week, to have an RC cycle if > >> >> not part of a 5.6.1RC2 (tag is tomorrow) > >> >> > >> >> 5.6 and 5.5 actually overlap in the release weeks. 5.6 is planned on > >> >> odd weeks whereas 5.5 is on even weeks. > >> >> > >> >> Waiting for Ferenc's advice anyway. > >> >> > >> >> Julien.P > >> > > >> >I have no issues with reverting at this point as that's the best route > to > >> >get stable releases back on track. I thought I had fixed some really > old > >> >bugs with those commits but the medicine turned out to be worse than > the > >> >disease. My apologies again for letting those problems sneak into > >> > releases > >> >:/ > >> > >> I've got the necessary fixes lined up at this point, I just need to know > >> how you guys would prefer to proceed on this. > >> > >> I can commit the relevant changes to 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 and double-check > >> with > >> RMs to ensure they make it into this next set of releases or we can > revert > >> the previous commits and forget about the bug fixes altogether. > >> > >> Just let me know which you prefer. Thanks. > > > > > > hi, > > > > I would prefer reverting the regression from 5.6.1, and I would be fine > > having the proper fix later on, but I think it would be nice if we could > > keep that off from the stable branches until we can validate (feedback > from > > the Horde guys would be nice but it would really help a ton if we could > have > > tests for both the original problem this was intended to fix and for the > > regression introduced while doing so) that the patch is now proper (maybe > > keeping it in a pull request in the meanwhile). > > What do you think? > > For me its all right and safe. > > Next week we'll have 5.5.18RC1, which could contain the fix if it's > been validated and want to go for an RC stage. > > Julien.P > FYI: I've tagged 5.6.1 and I had to revert the following commits for this: 372844918a318ad712e16f9ec636682424a65403 f86b2193a483f56b0bd056570a0cdb57ebe66e2f 30a73658c63a91c413305a4c4d49882fda4dab3e 84a4041ba47e92e7a0ba03938d0ebf88b5fcf6cf 98e67add15a6b889efe152c23ed15a61f022a63a 98e67add15a6b889efe152c23ed15a61f022a63a and 30a73658c63a91c413305a4c4d49882fda4dab3e were merge commits with conflict resolution Could you review that the current status of ext/openssl/xp_ssl.c is proper in the tag? Thanks! -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
