Author lemburg
Recipients Lukasa, alex, benjamin.peterson, christian.heimes, dstufft, giampaolo.rodola, gregory.p.smith, janssen, josh.r, lemburg, mnot, ncoghlan, pitrou
Date 2014-06-20.09:05:08
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <53A3F93C.1050701@egenix.com>
In-reply-to <1403249174.26.0.0606147442219.issue21308@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
On 20.06.2014 09:26, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> 
> 2.7.8 will likely be earlier than expected in order to address the latest OpenSSL update for the Windows installers. So while the likely time frame for this hasn't changed (i.e. November'ish 2014), that release is now expected to be 2.7.9 (assuming the OpenSSL review doesn't find any more surprises, which is a big assumption).

I think we need to be more careful about using those patch level release
numbers. If we do a new release every time OpenSSL needs to get patched,
we'd probably hit the 2.7.10 wall later this year.

IMO, now would be a good time to discuss how we should deal with
the patch level number turning two digit or preventing that
using some other approach.
History
Date User Action Args
2014-06-20 09:05:08lemburgsetrecipients: + lemburg, gregory.p.smith, ncoghlan, janssen, pitrou, mnot, giampaolo.rodola, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, alex, dstufft, Lukasa, josh.r
2014-06-20 09:05:08lemburglinkissue21308 messages
2014-06-20 09:05:08lemburgcreate