Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 01:48:30 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: call it musl 1.2.0? An idea crossed my mind today regarding the time64 conversion: should we call the first release with it switched over musl 1.2.0 instead of 1.1.25? This would both reflect that there's something ABI-significant (and a big functional milestone) about the release, and would admit keeping a 1.1.x branch around for a while with backports of any major bug fixes, since there will probably be some users hesitant to switch over to 64-bit time_t right away before it's well-tested. Looking at the roadmap goals that were set for 1.2.0 a while (a couple years?) back now, most of them have been met: - Out-of-tree builds - Deduplication and cleanup of bits header system - Deduplication of atomic asm logic - AArch64 port - RISC-V 64 port - Significant improvement to previously-buggy/experimental archs - External _FORTIFY_SOURCE implementation available - External nss replacement available - Unicode (mostly?) up-to-date The ones that have not been met are: - Locale overhaul (lots of subpoints) - IDN support - All documentation goals - Midipix All except which are (to say the least) somewhat drawn-out goals with no end in sight. Adding "64-bit time_t on 32-bit archs" to the above completed list, and possibly also adding experimental riscv32, it sounds pretty 1.2.0-worthy to me. Thoughts on this? 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.