From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/14534 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Khem Raj Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: call it musl 1.2.0? Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 08:30:03 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20190809054830.GG9017@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="169158"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-14550-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Aug 09 17:30:46 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hw6qr-000hrs-Lb for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Aug 2019 17:30:45 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 21662 invoked by uid 550); 9 Aug 2019 15:30:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 21612 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2019 15:30:42 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=FeFYwlKttJ7gCwNOM4FCf5DZb+R+Q//pfK7XhLktNQg=; b=iA2vPSSE072c0DefkbVe2kwVGsK0Pd3VL7bPs9XKyTJct/gqxMROlzaDh4ooqQEQKw 6pYYHxAoPFPFvvGTKYpuMO6vxnN2gdyaLT/XHhHvMmXlGdnzb2TbEvnhAyuYLtnrKD4r D2d5j0DhqsplDKJBhCLRuUWQrieOSkB6lHR8WOOPM2MyaVR9x6VXtAwIzogQRz8E7x70 SYTPveWtOVCfFHCOneOdiAuwNecA5tDmMoPfjN5QIUiRiZvNBUNpFpIZSWoQDJTQMkzl U5rRGJNfO7ZpcgkpFtpYxvKHXkyhK3pmqumejg41TVNK9tHFoYQU+dUH9zJtizBdnxkI 9ZSA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=FeFYwlKttJ7gCwNOM4FCf5DZb+R+Q//pfK7XhLktNQg=; b=gpuWBhkV9wnz0XGcDF7LMycnDxxm5BwwZDNDPNw0fQECjKIQude5B+p6YPOSGcmyMZ QUXgI9HEg9Gzh/XhRvg+N8JLTA5I91+g1oJVmh/lzGdt2sgDYDkBqfkEhbbxRRfG8HfS N7WqeW7GfT5OijwhWGu3W9Re/XT/tPu+NlGS0ER8k0y+Q48rkmNFtqu8EoHZii+ZpAxo Mab/q8N2VKfDSAyQaZpNnPJUMZZFd25F00P0o8cItwns2ykiveQfc2zzgSdRwqiype8/ iHwaBd4ZT3Nf6GIWgqEdt1Kps9gNF1rxFfcMpVV4Qb43APk9ku3ocZW/syIqC+nwVKCv v3Wg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUv2Q/cb4oL0EZL/Fa110MOwI1tcjsFa/8pHCeGeu/CjKQReIaX 8jQZtl8OsqoV1Fk73N/3vLFWkvMo1BhZy0YzIx7IfkWI X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzhLcEnKJpBJKMBzP4/yKwJ7rKKFwWNxcTqAXml6JUOCIQ9Sj5KsG6gq/GpgOjdDYKU56XuMG74fS304nYJKqo= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1183:: with SMTP id d3mr18472712qtj.53.1565364629772; Fri, 09 Aug 2019 08:30:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20190809054830.GG9017@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:14534 Archived-At: On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:48 PM Rich Felker 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