Thanks, as always
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:45 PM Christian Heimes
wrote:
> On 26/02/2019 21.31, Wes Turner wrote:
> >> IMHO it's
> > fine to ship the last 2.7 build with an OpenSSL version that was EOLed
> > just 24h earlier.
> >
> > Is this a time / cost issue or a branch policy issue?
> >
> >
On 26/02/2019 21.31, Wes Turner wrote:
>> IMHO it's
> fine to ship the last 2.7 build with an OpenSSL version that was EOLed
> just 24h earlier.
>
> Is this a time / cost issue or a branch policy issue?
>
> If someone was to back port the forthcoming 1.1.1 to 2.7 significantly
> before the EOL da
> IMHO it's
fine to ship the last 2.7 build with an OpenSSL version that was EOLed
just 24h earlier.
Is this a time / cost issue or a branch policy issue?
If someone was to back port the forthcoming 1.1.1 to 2.7 significantly
before the EOL date, could that be merged?
There are all sorts of e.g.
Hi,
today's OpenSSL release of 1.0.2r and 1.1.1b reminded me of OpenSSL's
release strategy [1]. OpenSSL 1.0.2 will reach EOL on 2019-12-31, 1.1.0
will reach EOL on 2019-09-11 (one year after release of OpenSSL 1.1.1).
First the good news: There is no need to take any action for 2.7 to 3.6.
As of
