Blame
| cf79d2 | novaflash | 2026-10-07 11:46:50 | 1 | # Basic info |
| 2 | ||||
| 3 | * Time: Wednesday 7 October 2026 at 14:00 CEST (12:00 UTC) |
|||
| 4 | * Place: #openvpn-meeting channel on !LiberaChat IRC network |
|||
| 5 | ||||
| 6 | # Topics |
|||
| 7 | ||||
| 8 | * **Updated: 2.7.x release** |
|||
| 9 | Originally 2.7.8 was planned for last week, but a last moment fix for Windows DCO driver made us decide to postpone till today. |
|||
| 10 | 2.7.8 with the Windows DCO driver update will go out today. |
|||
| 1f855e | novaflash | 2026-10-07 12:31:18 | 11 | Version 2.7.9 is now planned for 4 November. |
| cf79d2 | novaflash | 2026-10-07 11:46:50 | 12 | |
| 13 | - **Updated: community meetup 2026** |
|||
| 14 | Coordination is currently taking place here: https://community.openvpn.net/Meetups/2026-Paderborn |
|||
| 15 | The date is around 17 and 18 October, location in Paderborn, Germany. |
|||
| 16 | The t-shirt design was completed and the shirts have been ordered and will be delivered to Paderborn directly. |
|||
| 17 | ||||
| 18 | # Backlog |
|||
| 19 | ||||
| 20 | - **test latency and MTU in openvpn** |
|||
| 21 | A new feature is proposed for adding to master; ability to do latency and MTU tests in the OpenVPN protocol. |
|||
| 22 | This would allow for a client to for example select the best available server based on test results. |
|||
| 23 | This is currently under review: https://gerrit.openvpn.net/q/topic:%22oob-server-probe%22 |
|||
| 24 | The design document is here: https://github.com/lstipakov/openvpn/blob/server-probe-design/design-server-probe.md |
|||
| 25 | ||||
| 26 | - **2.7 security audit** |
|||
| 27 | The security audit was completed for 2.7.0 and results are available internally. |
|||
| 28 | We are working to publish this in an official blog post. ordex and novaflash are driving this in OpenVPN Inc. internally. |
|||
| 29 | ||||
| 30 | * **Coordinating big changes** |
|||
| 31 | A related discussion is how to handle big changesets (e.g. currently the multipeer changes from plaisthos and the |
|||
| 32 | oob changes from lev). There was some unhappiness that these changesets are dropped without sufficient context and |
|||
| 33 | that makes it hard to keep track of all the developments. One advise is that developers that want to have big (or many) |
|||
| 34 | changes merged are encouraged to write a mail to the mailing list to provide a "cover letter" for the patch set and |
|||
| 35 | a convenient place to discuss the overall direction without getting bogged down in the discussion of individual changes. |
|||
| 36 | We have lost this practice since not generally using mail-based patchsets anymore. That can be also a good opportunity |
|||
| 37 | to point out dicussions happening in PRs for the RFC document. |