> On 19 Apr 2024, at 10:06, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>
> On 19.04.24 07:37, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 12:53:43PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> If everything is addressed, I agree that 0001, 0003, and 0004 can go into
>>> PG17, the rest later.
>> About the PG17 bits, would you agree about a backpatch? Or perhaps
>> you disagree?
>
> I don't think any of these need to be backpatched, at least right now.
>
> 0001 is just a cosmetic documentation tweak, has no reason to be backpatched.
>
> 0003 adds new functionality for LibreSSL. While the code looks straightforward, we have little knowledge about how
itworks in practice. How is the buildfarm coverage of LibreSSL (with SSL tests enabled!)? If people are keen on this,
itmight be better to get it into PG17 and at least let to go through a few months of beta testing.
>
> 0004 effectively just enhances an error message for LibreSSL; there is little reason to backpatch this.
Hearing no objections to this plan (and the posted v10), I'll go ahead with
0001, 0003 and 0004 into v17 tomorrow.
--
Daniel Gustafsson