In message <[email protected]> on Mon, 24 Sep 2018 16:09:07 +0000, "Dr. Matthias St. Pierre" <[email protected]> said:
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: openssl-project <[email protected]> Im Auftrag von > > Richard Levitte > > Gesendet: Montag, 24. September 2018 17:41 > > An: [email protected] > > Betreff: [openssl-project] NEW: A proposal for an updated OpenSSL version > > scheme (v3.0-dev) > > > > Following the discussion that we had on the previous documents and on > > all the input I got, I created a new version (v3.0-dev) for this proposal: > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6l7VYn176JKzOtERdp9OG0HcyhnJZnVdRLD07L_1wE/ > > > > It's written from the point of view that the comment in opensslv.h and > > the documentation in OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER.pod are correct as to what > > the components in the version number are, and that we simply didn't do > > as the docs said since 1.0.0. So the idea is to simply reset, and > > then synthesize the value of existing macros (especially > > OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER) to be safe to use as we have observed that > > users do. > > I'm not sure about the implication of the new document v3 on the two > proposals from document v2. Does it mean you dropped your own > proposal in favour of Tim's proposal? Or will there be two competing > proposals, each described in its own document? v3 is a new version that replaces v2. So yeah, I'm going with Tim's proposal. That takes us on a path where we don't try to preserve historical habits ad nauseum, but rather do a good enough job for a period of time while fully switching to semantic versioning. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte [email protected] OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ _______________________________________________ openssl-project mailing list [email protected] https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
