Re: call it musl 1.2.0?

[Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:48 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.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