On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
rep.dot@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:51:53PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
On (10/05/10 00:02), Rob Landley wrote:
So now that NPTL is in, it sounds like the next release should be either 1.0
or 1.0-pre. It is more or less
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 09:18:52AM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
rep.dot@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:51:53PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
On (10/05/10 00:02), Rob Landley wrote:
So now that NPTL is in, it sounds like the next
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:51:53PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
On (10/05/10 00:02), Rob Landley wrote:
So now that NPTL is in, it sounds like the next release should be either 1.0
or 1.0-pre. It is more or less feature complete, isn't it?
yeah I have mentioned it on IRC couple of times to have
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
rep.dot@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:51:53PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
On (10/05/10 00:02), Rob Landley wrote:
So now that NPTL is in, it sounds like the next release should be either 1.0
or 1.0-pre. It is more or less
to be the case. (It's
actually been the case since 0.9.26, we're overdue. Busybox had its 1.0
release 5 years ago. Does that mean it ran out of stuff to do? No, it means
it's not a toy anymore and we think you should be able to _use_ it.)
Rob
--
Latency is more important than throughput
nothing magical about the 1.0 release that'll stop people from wanting to
switch to new kernel APIs and coming up with more efficient layouts for
structures in response to that sort of thing...
I'd also like to remind people of the awesome video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid
for uClibc pretty much isn't in the cards,
because when you change the uClibc .config you change the ABI. Also, there's
nothing magical about the 1.0 release that'll stop people from wanting to
switch to new kernel APIs and coming up with more efficient layouts for
structures in response
