[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
