Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> On 22 jun 2009, at 17.46, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> It seems like there is large potential for failure in
>>> contexts other than the one or two you are going to be able to test
>>> right now. Is there anything that can be done to reduce the risk?
>
>> I share your concerns in general. But I think we nee to take into
>> account that this simply does not work without the patch.
>
> Frankly, I don't much care whether openssl-with-an-external-engine
> works; we never supported that before, and if it doesn't work now,
Sure we did. It's in 8.3.
It may not have ever worked properly, but that's a different thing.
According do our code and documentation, the feature is there and supported.
> that's not a regression. What I'm worried about at this stage of the
> release cycle is regressions, eg, does the code still compile at all
> with openssl version 0.9.random-version-that-used-to-work.
Right, and we don't cover *that* many different versions with the
buildfarm...
So how about this:
1) We add a note to the documentation that states explicitly that this
only works for engines that don't require intialization.
2) We add a section on the wiki for patches that fix known issues in
8.4, but that may cause behavioral changes and thus don't get applied to
the main code until 8.5. I'm sure there will be other patches on this
list eventually (after release time).
Perhaps even a reference from #1 to #2?
--
Magnus Hagander
Self: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/