A modest proposal: call it 1.0

[Rob Landley]

On 02/02/2011 11:35 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>> >> I know have an ARM target to use, I'll try to test the sh
>> >> implementation (simply based on dwarf2) to see if it can be
>> >> exported to all archs
> >
> > It would be great if we could have a DWARF4 (or DWARF2 for that
> > matter) impl, yes!
> > What is your delta on this? Could we get it into an eventual -rc3?

If you're going to add NPTL support after five years of development, and
you're going to have at least 3 release candidates, and we're going to
test everything to the hilt...

Call the release 1.0.0 please.  Just do it.  Don't worry about "binary
ABI stability" because that ain't happening ever, since there's a number
of different ways to break the ABI by changing the .config and the
various discussions about annotating the thing over the years always
wandered off into INSANE complexity.

Say that bugfix only dot releases (1.0.1 and friends), built with the
same config, won't break the ABI.  But development stabiliziation
releases (1.1.x and so on) may do so, but you can always stick with the
old version and there's this thing called "static linking" which uClibc
not only supports but is actually _good_ at, which is always an option...

After five years of developmental constipation, it's time for a 1.0
release, like busybox had six years ago.  Because if we don't do it now,
we never will and it's officially an unattainable platonic ideal.

1.0 just means "feature complete", not "bug free".  (No software is
perfect.)  And with NPTL and the ability to build just about any
arbitrary userspace package against uClibc, we're there.

Rob