Why 2.1 is delayed for so long (was: none)

Werner Koch wk at gnupg.org
Fri Sep 19 10:49:25 CEST 2014

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 02:25, djhaskin987 at gmail.com said:

> also seen Werner say on this mailing list that he has used 2.1 "for
> years now". I wonder if there is a measure by which the four-year-old
> version shall be considered stable. If so, what is it? If not, or if

Never change a running system (i.e. 1.4).  I am glad to see that after
11 years 2.0 is now going mainstream.

I assume that 2.1 will be be adopted faster because it has improvements
which are fashionable now; in particular ECC.  However, ECC is also one
of the problems why 2.1 is delayed.  The plan is to implement the new
non-TLA created ECC curves (Curve255519).  Last fall it looked that the
IETF would fast adopt they as standards but they keep on debating.  Thus
the likely outcome is that 2.1 will be released without an official IETF
standard for the new curves.

I did a new beta yesterday but my experience with beta versions is that
they are not widely used or problems/success are not reported.  To move
forward we might have to jump into cold water and release 2.1 without
having many test results.  And I need to set aside enough time to
quickly work on reported problems after 2.1.0.  Thus all other
construction areas should be cleaned up before.



Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list