Re: Tagging 2.2.32

[William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:57 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
wrote:

> it looks like 2.2.32 is in a good state for tagging, [...]
>
> There are three patches looking for one more review, and once
> those three are reviewed, I expect to tag later today or early
> tomorrow morning.
>

If anyone is looking at the remaining patches, please holler and
I'll hold off for even later today, otherwise I plan to T&R by 2pm CDT.

The three remaining patches are fairly straightforward, the first
dodges bad cache entries, the second dodges allocation issues
with openssl engines that we fixed recently on 2.4, and the last
is a very widely requested (and widely tested) fix to allow users
https->proxy which permits opaque proxy authentication, yet
still allows the user agent to CONNECT to the target server.
It would be great to see any (or all) of these make the tag.

Re: Tagging 2.2.32

[William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On Jul 1, 2016 9:49 AM, "William A Rowe Jr" <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:57 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
wrote:
>>
>> it looks like 2.2.32 is in a good state for tagging, [...]
>>
>> There are three patches looking for one more review, and once
>> those three are reviewed, I expect to tag later today or early
>> tomorrow morning.
>
>
> If anyone is looking at the remaining patches, please holler and
> I'll hold off for even later today, otherwise I plan to T&R by 2pm CDT.
>
> The three remaining patches are fairly straightforward, the first
> dodges bad cache entries, the second dodges allocation issues
> with openssl engines that we fixed recently on 2.4, and the last
> is a very widely requested (and widely tested) fix to allow users
> https->proxy which permits opaque proxy authentication, yet
> still allows the user agent to CONNECT to the target server.
> It would be great to see any (or all) of these make the tag.

Sorry for the lack of notice/activity on this.

With no one free to review the two line, adopted patch to free up the SSL
variables, along with reviewing the second most popular patch from
bugzilla, it seems prudent to wait for more eyes.  No sense tagging
something that can't receive sufficient reviews, and this is a tough
weekend stateside to find that.

Will try to coordinate with the next 2.4 cycle, the 2.2 EOL warning is
pre-staged in the next 2.4 Announcement files.