Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 08:30:03 -0700 From: Khem Raj <raj.khem@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: call it musl 1.2.0? On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:48 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > > 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. > I like the idea. what do you think about 2.0 > 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.