[ANNOUNCE] 0.9.32-rc1 released

[Carmelo Amoroso]

On 27/12/10 11:57, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>>
>> On 25/12/10 14:29, Ed W wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>>> Once we've done a full SUSv4 audit we could start thinking about something like a 1.0.0.
>>>> This release will be 0.9.32
>>>
>>> I personally think you are artificially attached to keeping the version numbers low (ie in the opposite direction)?  Why
>>> not call that SUSv4 release version 2? (or 3?)
>>>
>>> I do get that the numbering is completely arbitrary, but equally you could be seen as arguing completely the opposite
>>> direction?  I mean to programmers, what is wrong with a major release of functionality occurring between version 2.3.4.5
>>> and 2.3.4.6?  However, to less technical folks it's a good hint as to the progress of the project
>>>
>>> On the other hand it's not entirely unreasonable to point out that "much" of the world tends to use an easily increasing
>>> first digit for major releases (which in a previous thread it was already agreed that nearly all uclibc releases are
>>> pretty much "major releases"?), a minor release second digit and a point release third digit.  Agreed it's completely
>>> arbitrary, but it does help keep a sense of perspective on progress to an outside observer?
>>>
>>> Anyway, the whole point is it's completely arbitrary...  (But I do think a major addition such as nptl threads is worth
>>> of an increase in major version number? SUSv4 audit might also be?)
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Ed W
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> uClibc mailing list
>>> uClibc at uclibc.org
>>> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
>>>
>>
>> Please guys,
>> let's work together to improve further uClibc, without spending so much in discussions regarding
>> the numbering policy, that is anyway a important part of the release strategy.
>>
>> I agree with Bernhard's current strategy. I'd suggest to include the prelink stuff in 0.9.33, so we can create
>> a rc1 once prelink will start to get merged, and continue with SUSv4 audit.
> 
> I believe PROTECTED syms needs to go in before next release. Carmelo?
> 

Yes Jocke you're right. Salvo that was working on this was preempted for another task, but he almost finished to
implement the generic implementation. It works for SH at least. It required a bit more attention to report the changes
on all other archs.

Unfortunately I did not have the patch right now for review because my team in all on vacations.
I'll be back on Jan 3rd to work and I'll manage to review and post the patch asap.

Protected could be added into .32-rc2 I guess.

>  Jocke
> 
>

Carmelo