Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 11:54:15 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: call it musl 1.2.0? On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 08:30:03AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > 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. Thanks for the feedback! > what do you think about 2.0 I generally don't like version inflation, and to me major versions still signify heavy, usually-incompatible changes. time64 is a big deal for preserving the long-term viability of the platform, but it's not something users will immediately get new or different outward behavior out of. If anything, in the short term it's going to be a bit of a headache, fixing code making bad assumptions like ability to use syscalls with time arguments directly or even just stuff using %ld to format time_t values. What I might envision for a "2.0" is a refactorization of library to kernel glue and reorganization of directory structure that makes musl capable of filling more of a newlib-like role. I'm still not even sure if it makes sense to do that, but I'm using it here as an example of the scope/order of magnitude. 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.