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 next release be 1.0 > > It also sounds like a stable ABI 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 to that sort of thing... > > I'd also like to remind people of the awesome video: > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5503858974016723264 > > April 19, 2007 Release Management in Large Free Software Projects - Martin > Michlmayr (Debian) > > ABSTRACT: Time based releases are made according to a specific time interval, > instead of making a release when a particular functionality or set of > features > have been implemented. This talk argues that time based release management > acts as an effective coordination mechanism in large volunteer projects and > shows examples from seven projects that have moved to time based releases: > Debian, GCC, GNOME, Linux, OpenOffice, Plone, and X.org. > > Just thought I'd mention that... > -- > Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds > _______________________________________________ > uClibc mailing list > uClibc@uclibc.org > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
