The branch master has been updated
via ac5eb58ddc24db122c494b4cb13de3adff366e48 (commit)
from 2f148d990cb7ada6bf1516d08d9927cc9efd7b26 (commit)
- Log -----------------------------------------------------------------
commit ac5eb58ddc24db122c494b4cb13de3adff366e48
Author: Rich Salz <rs...@akamai.com>
Date: Mon May 14 16:29:47 2018 -0400
Remove rationale, clarify language.
Add 1.1.1 release/LTS details.
Remove paragraph justifying binary compatibility. Also remove
phrase "as implied by the above" beause, well, it ACTUALY ISN'T
implied by the above. :)
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <m...@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Mark Cox <m...@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/web/pull/52)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of changes:
policies/releasestrat.html | 28 ++++++++--------------------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/policies/releasestrat.html b/policies/releasestrat.html
index 3f37936..83b85d2 100644
--- a/policies/releasestrat.html
+++ b/policies/releasestrat.html
@@ -34,20 +34,6 @@
performance improvements and so on. There is no need to
recompile applications to benefit from these features.</p>
- <p>Binary compatibility also allows other possibilities. For
- example, consider an application that wishes to utilize
- a new cipher provided in a specific 1.0.x release, but it
- is also desirable to maintain the application in a 1.0.0
- context. Customarily this would be resolved at compile time
- resulting in two binary packages targeting different OpenSSL
- versions. However, depending on the feature, it might be
- possible to check for its availability at run-time, thus cutting
- down on the maintenance of multiple binary packages. Admittedly
- it takes a certain discipline and some extra coding, but we
- would like to encourage such practice. This is because we
- want to see later releases being adopted faster, because new
- features can improve security.</p>
-
<p>With regards to current and future releases the OpenSSL
project has adopted the following policy:</p>
@@ -64,15 +50,18 @@
and we will specify one at least every four years. Non-LTS
releases will be supported for at least two years.</p>
- <p>As implied by the above paragraphs, during the final year
+ <p>During the final year
of support, we do not commit to anything other than security
- fixes. Before that, bug and security fixes will be applied
+ fixes. Before then, bug and security fixes will be applied
as appropriate.</p>
<p>The next version of OpenSSL will be 1.1.1. This is currently in
development and has a primary focus of implementing TLSv1.3. The
RFC for TLSv1.3 has not yet been published by the IETF. OpenSSL 1.1.1
- will not have its final release until that has happened.</p>
+ will not have its final release until that has happened;
+ we want to have at least one beta release after TLS 1.3 is
+ officially published as an RFC. The next LTS release will be
+ 1.1.1.</p>
<p>The draft release timetable for 1.1.1 is as follows. This may be
amended at any time as the need arises.</p>
@@ -88,9 +77,8 @@
<li>3rd April 2018, beta release 2 (pre4)</li>
<li>17th April 2018, beta release 3 (pre5)</li>
<li>1st May 2018, beta release 4 (pre6)</li>
- <li>8th May 2018, release readiness check (new release
- cycles added if required, first possible final release date:
- 15th May 2018)</li>
+ <li>29th May 2018, beta release 5 (pre7)</li>
+ <li>19th June 2018, beta release 6 (pre8)</li>
</ul>
<p>An alpha release means:</p>
_____
openssl-commits mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-commits
