Shane has done the IG D.9 work: it is in #12835 and is awaiting review. I
think it should be in beta if possible. It’s mostly adding a second test case
due to NIST changing guidance recently, so low risk and helpful for the lab.
As Shane notes in 12801, there will be some conflicts generated
On 10/09/2020 11:40, Matt Caswell wrote:
>
>
> On 09/09/2020 13:03, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 04:58:26PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>>> Please can anyone with PRs that they wish to have included in OpenSSL
>>> 3.0 beta1 ensure that they are merged to master by 8th
Hi Matt et al.,
thanks to good collaboration with OTC members I've been able to get approved
most of my open PRs that would be good be included before feature freeze,
while a few such PRs appear 'nearly' approved.
Given the 24-hours grace period, the PRs #12478
Hi Matt et al.,
thanks to good collaboration with OTC members I've been able to get approved
most of my open PRs that would be good be included before feature freeze,
while a few such PRs appear 'nearly' approved.
Given the 24-hours grace period, the PRs #12478
On 09.09.20 14:03, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 04:58:26PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>> Please can anyone with PRs that they wish to have included in OpenSSL
>> 3.0 beta1 ensure that they are merged to master by 8th September.
> So that date has passed now. Can someone give an
Richard Levitte wrote:
> There are many red herrings in here, and I would argue that trying to
> be too uniform in the way you think about all functions may be
> harmful, because not all functions are classified the same.
> We cannot deny that many of our interfaces have an OOP
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 9:20 AM Dr. Matthias St. Pierre <
matthias.st.pie...@ncp-e.com> wrote:
> > ... I think we should change that. This does not mean that a reviewer
> who made a change request
> > two months ago and lost interest is forced to re-review, only that such
> stale reviews must be
> ... I think we should change that. This does not mean that a reviewer who
> made a change request
> two months ago and lost interest is forced to re-review, only that such stale
> reviews must be dismissed
> explicitly, if the reviewer does not respond to a re-review request within a
>
> Your suggestion seems workable too. PRs are merged with outstanding change
> requests indicated
> — a reviewer comments, the comments are addressed then a different reviewer
> approves without
> the original review being removed. The labels are a bit more in your face.
> A hybrid “hold:
Matthias,
Your suggestion seems workable too. PRs are merged with outstanding change
requests indicated — a reviewer comments, the comments are addressed then a
different reviewer approves without the original review being removed. The
labels are a bit more in your face. A hybrid “hold:
> Just wondering if we should have two new labels: “hold: tests needed” and
> “hold: documentation needed” labels?
> There are a number of PRs that come through where one or both of these are
> missing missing.
The two use cases you mention are actually better handled by a change request
(via
11 matches
Mail list logo
