> On 19 Apr 2024, at 10:06, Peter Eisentraut <pe...@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 it works in practice. > How is the buildfarm coverage of LibreSSL (with SSL tests enabled!)? If > people are keen on this, it might 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
