Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77500 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 40960 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2014 05:39:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Sep 2014 05:39:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rdlowrey@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rdlowrey@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.223.171 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rdlowrey@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.223.171 mail-ie0-f171.google.com Received: from [209.85.223.171] ([209.85.223.171:47545] helo=mail-ie0-f171.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 58/A4-09206-7A701245 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 01:39:52 -0400 Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id rd18so4022674iec.2 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:39:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=w/j1m834/4IV0XFW17E6JxHxa0nNAFS5UjF07zcmCJw=; b=dMLTKHbGosnsdQs31fyBrNx5jFcqYNUxWVq1pvdO7uczEcnUGGZO+oacZLKGyhTlUu NJkFtKEFMaiifCidYij05/hNsnrHc18zUi9rRl7AUca4L7gmsw8L6wnii075K+i4kpRM VCt8sY8ORzATvk8FntQURS8DhhRNHrFXS2VeeRpp0uVubrccI340H4+XuXmTqsDy4eaI QtH6m6IEi6awewZb+T+eUgZTTejgSytQhYCD5VzYTjtIjmrYN5KN2x/rbSiBq7ng3hzX 8dYM0KNplTp1jib5I/C2PLbAFNYO/b/a0G8poQxReJoiMv8LL65uogg0aTUvFziiqXVu 3JeQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.101.77 with SMTP id d13mr350118ico.53.1411450788976; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:39:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.197.164 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:39:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 01:39:48 -0400 Message-ID: To: "internals@lists.php.net" , julien pauli Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3010e841e51f7f0503b4fe7e Subject: Re: Re: OpenSSL bug in 5.4.33 and 5.5.17 From: rdlowrey@gmail.com (Daniel Lowrey) --20cf3010e841e51f7f0503b4fe7e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> Hi, >> >> That's a bad thing we need to fix ASAP. >> >> I think for 5.6.1 we'll revert it , if not, we'll need an RC2, which >> is something we usually don't do (but as this could involve security, >> we may do it). >> The fix can be merged to 5.5.18RC1, next week, to have an RC cycle if >> not part of a 5.6.1RC2 (tag is tomorrow) >> >> 5.6 and 5.5 actually overlap in the release weeks. 5.6 is planned on >> odd weeks whereas 5.5 is on even weeks. >> >> Waiting for Ferenc's advice anyway. >> >> Julien.P > >I have no issues with reverting at this point as that's the best route to >get stable releases back on track. I thought I had fixed some really old >bugs with those commits but the medicine turned out to be worse than the >disease. My apologies again for letting those problems sneak into releases >:/ I've got the necessary fixes lined up at this point, I just need to know how you guys would prefer to proceed on this. I can commit the relevant changes to 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 and double-check with RMs to ensure they make it into this next set of releases or we can revert the previous commits and forget about the bug fixes altogether. Just let me know which you prefer. Thanks. --20cf3010e841e51f7f0503b4fe7e--