From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4063 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl 0.9.14 released Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:22:03 -0400 Message-ID: <20130924172203.GN20515@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20130924061849.GA3027@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <524198C5.9070502@barfooze.de> <52419D3B.1030209@gentoo.org> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1380043334 12510 80.91.229.3 (24 Sep 2013 17:22:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:22:14 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-4067-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Sep 24 19:22:18 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VOWJW-0005xA-2b for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:22:18 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 3323 invoked by uid 550); 24 Sep 2013 17:22:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 3311 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2013 17:22:16 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52419D3B.1030209@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4063 Archived-At: On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 04:10:03PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 24/09/13 15:51, John Spencer wrote: > >> Sometime soon I also want to focus on what the development and release > >> model post-1.0 will be, especially whether we'll aim to maintain a > >> 'stable' branch with minimal new features alongside new development. > > > > having a stable branch which only gets backports of bugfixes makes sense > > if we aim for inclusion in conservative distributions. And embedded developers -- they don't want to waste their time heavily testing a new version with lots of additional features they don't need just to fix a bug that might affect their products. > > if nothing else, it signals that we care about stability. Yes, this is probably the most compelling reason. > > otoh it's much more work to maintain... Agreed. Hopefully we can minimize this. > If you want a stable branch I found _really_ useful having tags such as > > CC: musl-stable@musl-libc.org How is this a "tag"? > But you need at least 2 people doing the actual backporting weekly. I'm skeptical that it would be that much work. Unlike lots of projects, musl's codebase intentionally avoids a lot of interdependence between modules. If, for example, 80% of bug fix commits apply cleanly to both branches, they could just be committed to both directly, and that would probably leave, on average, less than one commit per week that needs to be backported but doesn't apply directly. If the majority of post-1.0 effort is spent on adding features and simplifying/refactoring existing code, I would tend to expect even fewer bug-fix commits, but the refactoring might make a higher percentage of them require backporting effort. Rich