On the basis of further discussion I'm changing my vote to 0 which enables this to pass now.
Tim. On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 5:18 PM Matt Caswell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 19/10/2021 19:31, Nicola Tuveri wrote: > > I believe Matt will find the time at some point to post the minutes > > from today's meeting, but until then here is my recap. > > We decided in the meeting that posting the minutes to the list wasn't > necessary and we would just push them to the repo: > > > https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=otc.git;a=blob;f=meeting-minutes/minutes-2021-10-19.txt;h=8bae2b86ecd7c4f967ba2aa822535dc0facbbfa9;hb=HEAD > > Matt > > > > > The discussion mostly focused on why the changes in #16725 are a > > bugfix and not a new feature, which would be a prerequisite to be > > admissible to be merged in the 3.0 branch. > > As I recall it, there were no objections to the final outcome of the > > PR to be desirable, the vote is entirely about this being a bugfix or > > not. > > > > It would be on those who voted +1 to properly argument why this is a > > bugfix and not a new feature, but the short version of that argument > > is that the outcome of #16725 was the "intended behavior" for 3.0.0. > > The counterargument is that we could not find written evidence (i.e., > > GH issues/PRs, documentation, and/or tests) that indeed the project > > ever committed to have this behavior in 3.0.0. > > > > > > The Strategic Architecture document has some text that could be > > somewhat related and used to support the "intend behavior" view, but > > the document clearly states > > > >> This document outlines the OpenSSL strategic architecture. It will take > multiple releases, starting from 3.0.0, to move the architecture from the > current "as-is" (1.1.1), to the future "to-be" architecture. > > > > Hence, it does not really prove that this functionality was always > > planned for the 3.0.0 release. > > > > Accepting this PR for the next minor release would not require a vote. > > > > > > > > I hope this recap is helpful to inform your decision. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Nicola > > > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 9:10 PM Kurt Roeckx <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 11:07:26AM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote: > >>> topic: Accept PR#16725 as a bug fix for backport into 3.0 subject to > the > >>> normal review process > >> > >> So we have various people voting -1. Does someone want to explain > >> why they vote -1? > >> > >> > >> Kurt > >> > > >
