[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20010713124652.A24899@openwall.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 12:46:52 +0400
From: solar@...nwall.com
To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: 0.2-prerelease/stable?
Hi,
I've decided to ask this question here, in the hope to get feedback
from both the developers and the (potential) users of Owl --
Do we need an Owl 0.2-prerelease (possible in a few weeks from now)
and then its corresponding stable branch (to replace 0.1-stable)?
The situation is this. Right now, Owl-current is binary-compatible
with 0.1-prerelease/stable in the sense that both upgrades to -current
and downgrades to -stable are possible with "make installworld" and
individual packages from -current may be installed on 0.1-stable.
We're planning to break this before 1.0, supporting upgrades to it
only. However, 1.0 is going to take months to release, and during
that time it may be desirable to use the additional packages and other
improvements we'll manage to get into -current after 0.1-prerelease
but before we break binary compatibility. This is why the question.
Of course, it will always be possible to just stay -current and use
all the new stuff, but this may not be acceptable for production
systems. We do expect serious reliability issues with -current in the
days following our planned major glibc and Linux-PAM updates.
--
/sd
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.
