This vote has started. I'll report back when we have an answer. Matt
On 15/01/2020 09:12, Matt Caswell wrote: > Not much feedback, so I'm assuming everyone is ok with this proposal. > > I'm going to start a vote soon with this wording: > > "Update the release strategy to the text shown here: > https://github.com/openssl/web/pull/154/commits/959153c7e62865beae9f24364f1c971b149f477a" > > > > Matt > > > > > On 07/01/2020 16:54, Matt Caswell wrote: >> I converted this proposal into a PR to amend the release strategy. >> Please see: >> >> https://github.com/openssl/web/pull/154 >> >> Matt >> >> >> On 07/01/2020 11:13, Matt Caswell wrote: >>> Hi all >>> >>> Myself, Paul, Shane, Richard and Nicola had a conf call today to discuss >>> the outstanding tasks and effort required to get us to a final release. >>> >>> We've previously said this about that timeline: >>> >>> "We are now not expecting code completion to occur until the end of Q2 >>> 2020 with a final release in early Q4 2020." >>> (https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2019/11/07/3.0-update/) >>> >>> >>> With that in mind we came up with the following proposal for a release >>> timetable which we think is a challenging but achievable timeline: >>> >>> alpha1, 2020-03-31: Basic functionality plus basic FIPS module >>> alpha2, 2020-04-21: Complete external provider support (serialization, >>> support for new algs, support for providers which only include >>> operations in a class) >>> alpha3, 2020-05-21: Almost there (aiming to test the API completeness >>> before beta1 freezes it) >>> beta1, 2020-06-02: Code complete (API stable, feature freeze) >>> betaN: Other beta TBD >>> Final: 2020 early Q4 >>> >>> The idea here is to set some intermediate deadlines to focus attention >>> on the final remaining tasks, with a series of 3 alphas prior to the >>> first beta release where each alpha release comes approximately every 3 >>> weeks. We can have some flexibility to adjust this timetable if we think >>> it is necessary (such as by including an additional alpha release if >>> required). >>> >>> Please let me know your thoughts. This would probably need to go to an >>> OMC vote to get approved. >>> >>> Matt >>>