Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 16:08:30 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl 1.0.x branch On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 11:23:52AM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 13:56:17 -0400 > Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> 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 > > has been pretty easy, but it's an extra task to keep up with, and the > > cherry-picking is probably going to turn into active backporting > > somewhere in the near future as the rs-1.0 and master branches > > continue to diverge. > > > > If I don't hear back that there's significant use of the 1.0.x > > releases by multiple projects, I'll probably plan to discontinue them > > in the next 4 to 6 months, and in the mean time, to release only when > > there are serious bugs (as opposed to releasing alongside every 1.1.x > > release). Does this sound reasonable? > > Yes. I guess you could just drop 1.0.x support now and consider re-open > it if you get complains. That's roughly what I proposed doing for now, except for throwing out a release without anyone complaining/requesting it in cases where there's a major bug (mainly just CVE-worthy ones, I think). > > If anyone's using 1.0.x not for the sake of stability but because it > > works better in some way for your setup (e.g. size, performance, > > application compatibility, etc.) please let me know about that too so > > we can see if there's a reasonable way to make 1.1.x work just as well > > for you. > > Alpine Linux appreciate the idea of stable/maintenance branches, but we > figured that we'd be better off with the 1.1.x for out 3.0 stable > release. (which is kinda beta anyways). We need the new features. Yes. In hindsight 1.0 was probably slightly premature from a "ready for distros" perspective, but releasing it as "1.0" was also probably essential to discovering that. So at this point if the 1.0.x branch is useful to anyone, I suspect it's users who have musl in embedded products where they know it meets their needs already and don't want to risk big changes, rather than distro-type users. I'd actually be interested in looking at other approaches for next time we reach a poing of needing a "new stable series" -- something to avoid unbounded divergence between stable and master. Having a rolling "well-tested and believed stable except for known bugs X, Y, and Z" release that's a few versions behind the latest release, and a list of commits since then which are purely bug-fixes, might be a good practical option. Such pairs of (base-version,list-of-commits) could automatically be transformed into tarballs. 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.