openfortivpn 1.24.0

[pgporada]

Fixes #1285

The changelog was generated with

$ git log --oneline --pretty=format:"%s" a011b5c916075bd240db6a03c02eac95baf09ad8..bb6be5454078cc40de758292b9ca6f2bd5d7a835 | sort -u

A maintainer will need to create the actual release.

[pgporada]

Alternatively if this should be 1.23.2 instead, that change is easy enough to make.

[adrienverge]

Hello Phil, thanks for taking the time!

Alternatively if this should be 1.23.2 instead, that change is easy enough to make.

Your choice of 1.24.0 seems right to me, since removing --plugin is a breaking change.

In my opinion a few changes are needed for consistency with other releases:

• Name the commit like other release commits, in particular remove the v from the version number (v is only for tags).
• Remove the empty ### not released yet section.
• Remove the dots at the end?
• Remove cosmetic changes, e.g. these:
  - Add C99/POSIX headers
  - Avoid irrelevant fixed-size type uint32_t
  - Address GCC warning
  - actions/checkout
  - github/codeql-action
  - proper indentation
  - Work around Coverity false positive and Fix Coverity defect: merge into fix a few coverity warnings?

@DimitriPapadopoulos what do you think? OK to release version 1.24.0?

[pgporada]

@adrienverge @DimitriPapadopoulos
Sorry for the delay, I'm back from some time off and have addressed the comments you left.

[adrienverge]

@pgporada thanks.

I allowed myself to fix a few problems and reword a bit, then push-force to your branch:
- you still need to name the commit like other release commits, e.g. "openfortivpn 1.24.0"
- there are "(#1289)" at the end
- case is not similar to the rest of the changelog,
-"OSSL" is "OpenSSL", "fixes" → "fix", etc.
Sorry for this nitpicking, but the changelog needs care: its goal is to be easily understandable by anyone, so they don't scratch their heads, nor open issues.

@DimitriPapadopoulos any thoughts before we release version 1.24.0?

[rmilecki]

If I'm not mistaken, we now have 1.24.0 release with a regression - broken cooperation with NetworkManager, see #1325

@adrienverge