On Mon, Jan 23, 2012, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jan 23, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > >> Was there a discussion of the decision to add significant features but > >> not go to 1.1? I'd like to review it before advocating for 1.1. (And, no, > >> I am quite sure it is not too late to choose "1.1" for "this new version" > >> if the community wants to do so during the beta testing.) > >> > > > > There was a discussion of the new versioning scheme some time ago. > > > I'm sure there was, but I can't find it easily in the archive. If "some time > ago" means "past our memory boundary", this would be a good time to revive > the discussion. If it means "it was discussed and finalized", it would be > good to know what that final decision was. >
OK well in short it was pretty much finalised and changing it now while of course possible would cause a fair bit of disruption. I'd have to check but most of the discussion was a couple of years ago with the release of OpenSSL 1.0.0. In brief the new versioning scheme works like this: Security and bug fixes can go into letter releases (e.g. 1.0.0f->g). No new features are allowed. New features that do not break binary compatibility require a new version. This would change the last digit. So 1.0.0->1.0.1. Features and major changes which cab break binary compatibility change the middle number so that would be 1.0.0->1.1.0. No precise definition has been formed for what would change the first number (i.e. 1.0.0->2.0.0) but it would have to be pretty signigicant ;-) Steve. -- Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer. Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [email protected]
