On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:41 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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
I will review and report back on the 5.6.1 later today. I've checked with the horde folks and my recent uncommitted patch resolves any bugs (both old and new). I plan to commit this for 5.4 and 5.5 today and then subsequently merge these changes so they can appear in the next 5.6.2. Starting this evening I will be travelling for the next seven days -- I can communicate during this time but will likely be unable to write/submit any code.
