[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140611131638.GS179@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:16:38 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: musl 1.0.x branch
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:41:06AM +0000, Oliver Schneider wrote:
> Hi Rich,
>
> in my case I'll try to stick to the latest version labeled "stable".
Thanks for the feedback -- it's nice to know at least somebody is
using it and the effort packaging isn't going to waste.
> The website currently still doesn't call 1.1.2 stable, so I simply
> haven't upgraded to it yet.
>
> * Latest release is 1.1.2.
> * Current stable maintenance release is 1.0.3.
>
> I think many others will share thus view, because it's best to rely on
> the developer for that information, i.e. whether some code is deemed
> stable or not.
For reference (I'm not sure this is published anywhere; it probably
should be) "stable" here means "no unnecessary changes that risk
disturbing an existing working deployment". It's not a matter of how
reliable or bug-free the release is.
My intended audience for stable is users who have fairly constant sets
of packages built against musl and who don't want to deal with changes
that might affect their build procedures, nonstandard or undocumented
behaviors their programs might be relying on, etc. The release series
from master (currently 1.1.x) on the other hand is probably a better
choice if you're expanding your set of software built against musl,
aiming to support a widening range of kernel versions, etc.
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.
