Steve explained how this should be done.
Closing.
Matt
--
Ticket here: http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=4343
Please log in as guest with password guest if prompted
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
On Friday 26 February 2016 17:37:11 Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 05:29:26PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > As just about the only team member who trolls through RT and closes
> > things with any quantity, I am not sure that I agree that fixing a
> > bug requires documentation if
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:17:41PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 27, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> >>
> >> Please ensure this is documented somewhere. I'm
FWIW, I agree with Viktor.
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
> On Feb 28, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>
> Thanks Viktor.
>
> Here's the practical problem I am trying to solve. Its a policy and
> procedure problem.
>
> Suppose an organization has a rule that says, "no private APIs shall
> be used". How do I tell an
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>
>> On Feb 27, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>>
>> Please ensure this is documented somewhere. I'm having trouble finding
>> information on the new rules.
>>
>> There's 15 or 20
On Fri 2016-02-26 18:04:43 +0100, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> I'd like to propose a policy of no bug fixes to undocumented public
> interfaces. If the interface is useful enough to fix, it has to be
> documented.
fwiw, i agree with Viktor on this proposal. Clear, sane
> On Feb 27, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>
> Please ensure this is documented somewhere. I'm having trouble finding
> information on the new rules.
>
> There's 15 or 20 years of using capitol and lower case identifiers to
> denote public and private APIs with
>> Correct me if I am wrong... API's that start with capitol letters are
>> public. Private interfaces use lowercase letters.
>> Documented/undocumented does not really factor things.
>
> You're wrong. Once OpenSSL's past sins are remediated, public
> interfaces are precisely those that are
>>> Nonsense. Source code is not API documentation, it is an
>> > implementation, not an interface contract.
>>
>> I'm not sure I'd consider it nonsense.
>
>Comments in source code are not documentation, they explain the
>internals of the implementation, not the contract.
Actually they can (and
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 05:34:14PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 05:29:26PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
> > As just about the only team member who trolls through RT and closes things
> > with any quantity, I am not sure that I agree that fixing a bug requires
> >
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:50:24PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > Nonsense. Source code is not API documentation, it is an
> > implementation, not an interface contract.
>
> I'm not sure I'd consider it nonsense.
Comments in source code are not documentation, they explain the
internals of
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:37:22PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>
>> It seems like (to me) the the most direct way to mark a function as
>> private is to add a comment in the source code stating such.
>
>
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:37:22PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> It seems like (to me) the the most direct way to mark a function as
> private is to add a comment in the source code stating such.
Nonsense. Source code is not API documentation, it is an
implementation, not an interface
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> As just about the only team member who trolls through RT and closes things
> with any quantity, I am not sure that I agree that fixing a bug requires
> documentation if the API isn't already documented.
+1. Concepts seem
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 05:29:26PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> As just about the only team member who trolls through RT and closes things
> with any quantity, I am not sure that I agree that fixing a bug requires
> documentation if the API isn't already documented.
We should also get the word out
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 05:29:26PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> As just about the only team member who trolls through RT and closes things
> with any quantity, I am not sure that I agree that fixing a bug requires
> documentation if the API isn't already documented.
Focus on fixing bugs in
As just about the only team member who trolls through RT and closes things with
any quantity, I am not sure that I agree that fixing a bug requires
documentation if the API isn't already documented.
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 05:10:42PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > I'd like to propose a policy of no bug fixes to undocumented public
> > interfaces.
>
> That seems extreme, given how much of the API is undocumented and how much
> external stuff depends on private things.
Not at all. You're well
>> > I'd like to propose a policy of no bug fixes to undocumented public
>> > interfaces. If the interface is useful enough to fix, it has to be
>> > documented. Anyone care to produce manpages for EC_KEY_priv2buf or
>> > EC_KEY_priv2oct?
>> >
>> Correct me if I am wrong... API's that start with
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:10:09PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > I'd like to propose a policy of no bug fixes to undocumented public
> > interfaces. If the interface is useful enough to fix, it has to be
> > documented. Anyone care to produce manpages for EC_KEY_priv2buf or
> >
> I'd like to propose a policy of no bug fixes to undocumented public
> interfaces.
That seems extreme, given how much of the API is undocumented and how much
external stuff depends on private things. I understand the goal. I just want
to make sure you've thought about the proposal. (And
>> > I have PR https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/739 with the below
>> > changes, please have a look.
>> >
>> > - In EC_KEY_priv2buf(), check for pbuf sanity.
>> > - If invoked with NULL, gracefully returns the key length.
> ...
> I'd like to propose a policy of no bug fixes to undocumented
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:50:27PM +, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
> > I have PR https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/739 with the below
> > changes, please have a look.
> >
> > - In EC_KEY_priv2buf(), check for pbuf sanity.
> > - If invoked with NULL, gracefully returns the key length.
>
On Wed Feb 24 12:07:05 2016, mo...@computer.org wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have PR https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/739 with the below
> changes, please have a look.
>
> - In EC_KEY_priv2buf(), check for pbuf sanity.
> - If invoked with NULL, gracefully returns the key length.
>
If you're doing
commit acae59b pushed, thanks!
--
Rich Salz, OpenSSL dev team; rs...@openssl.org
--
Ticket here: http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=4343
Please log in as guest with password guest if prompted
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe:
Hi,
I have PR https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/739 with the below
changes, please have a look.
- In EC_KEY_priv2buf(), check for pbuf sanity.
- If invoked with NULL, gracefully returns the key length.
Thanks,
Mohan
--
Ticket here: http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=4343
27 matches
Mail list logo