Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:22:03 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl 0.9.14 released On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 04:10:03PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 24/09/13 15:51, John Spencer wrote: > >> Sometime soon I also want to focus on what the development and release > >> model post-1.0 will be, especially whether we'll aim to maintain a > >> 'stable' branch with minimal new features alongside new development. > > > > having a stable branch which only gets backports of bugfixes makes sense > > if we aim for inclusion in conservative distributions. And embedded developers -- they don't want to waste their time heavily testing a new version with lots of additional features they don't need just to fix a bug that might affect their products. > > if nothing else, it signals that we care about stability. Yes, this is probably the most compelling reason. > > otoh it's much more work to maintain... Agreed. Hopefully we can minimize this. > If you want a stable branch I found _really_ useful having tags such as > > CC: musl-stable@...l-libc.org How is this a "tag"? > But you need at least 2 people doing the actual backporting weekly. I'm skeptical that it would be that much work. Unlike lots of projects, musl's codebase intentionally avoids a lot of interdependence between modules. If, for example, 80% of bug fix commits apply cleanly to both branches, they could just be committed to both directly, and that would probably leave, on average, less than one commit per week that needs to be backported but doesn't apply directly. If the majority of post-1.0 effort is spent on adding features and simplifying/refactoring existing code, I would tend to expect even fewer bug-fix commits, but the refactoring might make a higher percentage of them require backporting effort. Rich
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.