-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merge ML-KEM feature branch #943
Comments
@baentsch the checklist I was talking about is here: https://openssl-library.org/policies/technical/release-requirements/ We should consider whether some adaptation of this is appropriate for merging of feature branches. |
Thanks for sharing @mattcaswell .
I would think so: I have the impression that these lists mainly cater for "steady state evolution", am I wrong there? One concrete statement is "OTC/OMC-set objectives" have to be met: Where are those documented for this feature branch? The other is that coverage should be at least as good as the one for master. Can you provide a pointer how/where to check this? Looking at https://coveralls.io/github/openssl/openssl I didn't find a run on this feature branch: Does that have to be configured? How? |
Well this is one area where I think that checklist needs an update. That was written at a time before we had time-based releases, i.e. we were doing feature based releases and therefore we wouldn't release until the feature that was targeted for the release was complete. This is of course no longer the case (and not to mention that the OMC no longer exists!).
See: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/.github/workflows/coveralls.yml Not sure if there is anything else that needs to be done. I suppose there is the question of whether we want this for all feature branches. I imagine over time we are going to create a lot of feature branches. |
Are you going to initiate that? Anything I can/should do?
Thanks for the pointer. Documents that feature/ml-kem is not part of the test, right?
IMO, feature branches that are slated for inclusion in the next release should be part of that list such as to get timely notifications as to whether coverage is good enough for merge or more work is needed. |
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: