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.