[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 08:23:36 +0200
From: Kevin Bortis <kevin@...tis.ch>
To: "musl@...ts.openwall.com" <musl@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: musl 1.0.x branch
Hi
I also don't use the 1.0.x version because the 1.1.x branch at the moment
get a lot of new handy stuff. I would like something like the kernel
release model. Simply tag the 1.1.x branch as an RC and retag it, if no
regressions/bugs are found within a week or so. I think the most annoying
bugs, like not compiling on an architecture are easily found within that
timeframe.
Regards
Kevin
Am Freitag, 6. Juni 2014 schrieb :
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 01:56:17PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > I'm about to prepare the 1.0.3 release, and I've been thinking a bit
> > about the future of the 1.0.x branch. Specifically I'd like to gauge
> > the extent to which it's being used. So far cherry-picking fixes to it
>
> For us (the "Dapty" software repository at Aetey) there is no such thing
> as a "system-wide-version of the c library", neither any corresponding
> upgrade barrier whatsoever.
>
> From this point of view, given the ABI stability a single supported
> branch (in such a case "trunk") is fully sufficient.
>
> Thanks for musl, it is a pleasure to build against it.
>
> Rune
>
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
