Without stating an opinion either way - some stats: PRs with 1.1.1 milestone: 57 Issues with 1.1.1 milestone: 160 Coverity Issues: 68
All of the above need to be resolved (possibly by deferring them), plus any new ones that get raised in the meantime, before we can release. Matt On 20/03/18 14:58, Salz, Rich wrote: > We still have a lot of work to do to meet our release goals. It was > really bad last time and we definitely lost our focus multiple times. > > > > If in two weeks we get everything done and we’re just sitting aroun > waiting for the IETF to publish, great. But if not, I strongly believe > the only thing we should be working on is the release. > > > > EVERYONE can do code reviews. > > > > *From: *Tim Hudson <t...@cryptsoft.com> > *Reply-To: *"openssl-project@openssl.org" <openssl-project@openssl.org> > *Date: *Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 10:27 AM > *To: *"openssl-project@openssl.org" <openssl-project@openssl.org> > *Subject: *Re: [openssl-project] Code Repo > > > > We have been holding off on post-1.1.1 feature development for a long > time now - on the grounds that TLSv1.3 was just around the corner etc > and the release was close - and then we formed a release plan which we > pushed back a week. > > > > It is long overdue that we get to start moving those other things > forward in my view. > > We had planned to start moving around a pile of stuff for FIPS related > items - and keeping master locked for API changes really works against that. > > > > There are a large range of PRs which we pushed off as > must-wait-for-post-1.1.1 and those are things that remain stalled as > long as we keep master locked down. > > > > The release for 1.1.1 should be pretty close to "complete" as such - > looking at the plans - as with no new features going in the work > remaining should be relatively staight forward. > > Rich's suggestions I think tend to indicate more work going into the > release that planned - and we had said we were creating this branch - > and deviating from that at the last minute isn't really how we shuold be > making decisions as a project. > > Some stuff that would normally be in a banch now isn't ... as Richard > noted in the PR. > > > Tim. > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Matt Caswell > <m...@openssl.org<mailto:m...@openssl.org>> wrote: > > The beta release is now complete. > > Important: > > We did *not* create the OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable branch as planned (see > > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5690<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openssl_openssl_pull_5690&d=DwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=4LM0GbR0h9Fvx86FtsKI-w&m=9Agx-vYK5V64ygDZaA-VXF-_J0Toc8LHurSEHwYFftg&s=_K1qiQSxWe1g7tN6OWnwtKdRuWDwZIPWo08A7cQTlGA&e=>for > the discussion that led > to that decision). For now the release was done from the master branch > in the same way as we did for the previous alpha releases. However the > feature freeze *is* in force. Therefore no features can be pushed into > the repo until such time as the branch is created. All commits to master > must be suitable for inclusion in the 1.1.1 release. > > Matt > _______________________________________________ > openssl-project mailing list > openssl-project@openssl.org<mailto:openssl-project@openssl.org> > > https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mta.openssl.org_mailman_listinfo_openssl-2Dproject&d=DwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=4LM0GbR0h9Fvx86FtsKI-w&m=9Agx-vYK5V64ygDZaA-VXF-_J0Toc8LHurSEHwYFftg&s=wYNJwU48t3cQS2G7emoGFewD3Bc_KuMuT00Q1v_lCuM&e=> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > openssl-project mailing list > openssl-project@openssl.org > https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project > _______________________________________________ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
