From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4061 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Spencer Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl 0.9.14 released Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:51:01 +0200 Message-ID: <524198C5.9070502@barfooze.de> References: <20130924061849.GA3027@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1380030900 7431 80.91.229.3 (24 Sep 2013 13:55:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:55:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ivan.kanak@gmail.com To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-4065-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Sep 24 15:55:04 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 1VOT4x-0007xp-UK for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:55:04 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 28449 invoked by uid 550); 24 Sep 2013 13:55:02 -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 28435 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2013 13:55:01 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110221 SUSE/3.1.8 Mail/1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130924061849.GA3027@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4061 Archived-At: On 09/24/2013 08:18 AM, Rich Felker wrote: > > I'll continue working on the documentation too, in hopes of including > a presentable version in the next release tarball so it can get some > public review before 1.0. At this point my leaning is to hold off on > any other functional changes aside from bug fixes before 1.0; there > were a few items on the Roadmap as secondary targets which would have > been nice, but they're not critical and stabilizing for 1.0 is more > important. sounds like a good plan. especially the stateful iconv feature could lead to undesired and hard to detect breakage. > > 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. if nothing else, it signals that we care about stability. otoh it's much more work to maintain... thinking about stability, it also seems necessary to strengthen musl's web infrastructure. we should at least have links to download mirrors like http://foss.aueb.gr/mirrors/linux/musl-libc/ (not up-to-date, it seems, thus adding ivan to CC) or automatically updated git mirrors like ftp://ftp.barfooze.de/pub/mirror/musl-libc.org/index.html , http://repo.or.cz/w/musl.git or https://github.com/jhuntwork/musl