Re: [openssl.org #3381] Typo in macro name for ASN (1.0.1h)
--On Sunday, June 08, 2014 11:57 PM +0200 Matt Caswell via RT r...@openssl.org wrote: Hi Quanah Thanks for the submission. The problem with correcting this is that technically it forms part of the public API (since the macro is defined in asn1.h). I guess there's probably not a huge risk in changing it, as I can't imagine there's too many people relying on that define being there, but then on the other hand as this is just a minor cosmetic change its probably not worth it. I note that this has been spotted before and that the decision then was to just correct the error string itself (and not the macro name) - see commit 2b4ffc6. I think that's a reasonable compromise, so I'll stick with that decision and not make any further corrections. It could be fixed for 1.0.2 however, right? It's reasonable to expect the API to change across major releases. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Server Architect Zimbra, Inc. Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: [openssl.org #3381] Typo in macro name for ASN (1.0.1h)
--On Sunday, June 08, 2014 11:57 PM +0200 Matt Caswell via RT r...@openssl.org wrote: Hi Quanah Thanks for the submission. The problem with correcting this is that technically it forms part of the public API (since the macro is defined in asn1.h). I guess there's probably not a huge risk in changing it, as I can't imagine there's too many people relying on that define being there, but then on the other hand as this is just a minor cosmetic change its probably not worth it. I note that this has been spotted before and that the decision then was to just correct the error string itself (and not the macro name) - see commit 2b4ffc6. I think that's a reasonable compromise, so I'll stick with that decision and not make any further corrections. It could be fixed for 1.0.2 however, right? It's reasonable to expect the API to change across major releases. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Server Architect Zimbra, Inc. Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: [openssl.org #3381] Typo in macro name for ASN (1.0.1h)
On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 10:57:57PM +0200, Matt Caswell via RT wrote: Hi Quanah Thanks for the submission. The problem with correcting this is that technically it forms part of the public API (since the macro is defined in asn1.h). I guess there's probably not a huge risk in changing it, as I can't imagine there's too many people relying on that define being there, but then on the other hand as this is just a minor cosmetic change its probably not worth it. Can I suggest that we have both defines, set to the same value, for now and at some point remove the other? Kurt __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: [openssl.org #3381] Typo in macro name for ASN (1.0.1h)
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 11:14:54AM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: It could be fixed for 1.0.2 however, right? It's reasonable to expect the API to change across major releases. The 1.0.2 release is NOT a major release. The ABI is supposed to be stable across both patch and micro releases. The next release that can change the ABI is 1.1.0. -- Viktor. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: [openssl.org #3381] Typo in macro name for ASN (1.0.1h)
On 9 June 2014 19:42, Kurt Roeckx via RT r...@openssl.org wrote: On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 10:57:57PM +0200, Matt Caswell via RT wrote: Hi Quanah Thanks for the submission. The problem with correcting this is that technically it forms part of the public API (since the macro is defined in asn1.h). I guess there's probably not a huge risk in changing it, as I can't imagine there's too many people relying on that define being there, but then on the other hand as this is just a minor cosmetic change its probably not worth it. Can I suggest that we have both defines, set to the same value, for now and at some point remove the other? Unfortunately the correctly spelled version already exists in the codebase but defined to a *different* number. Matt __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
