Status update: Added missing CTX option to CZMQ, retired more deprecated methods that are in STABLE classes.
Fixed a few typos in the rel notes (thanks Himikof and Paddor!), still waiting for someone to merge: https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/2189 On 3 November 2016 at 09:34, Luca Boccassi <[email protected]> wrote: > Status update: > > I've added all the missing options to CZMQ (check please!), and I prepared > the release notes for libzmq 4.2, waiting for a merge: > > https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/2189 > > Anything else we should mention? > > > On Nov 1, 2016 21:33, "Luca Boccassi" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Status update: >> >> libzmq 4.1.6, libzmq 4.2.0-rc1 and czmq 4.0.0-rc1 are out on Github: >> >> https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1/releases/tag/v4.1.6 >> https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/releases/tag/v4.2.0-rc1 >> https://github.com/zeromq/czmq/releases/tag/v4.0.0-rc1 >> >> I'll send an email to the announce list shortly. As I wrote earlier >> I'll work to have proper release notes for the stable releases. >> >> Unless there are any objections, I'm aiming to push libzmq 4.2.0 >> stable tomorrow by the end of the day, and czmq the day after. >> >> It's an aggressive schedule, but I would _really_ like to get CZMQ >> 4.0.0 in Debian and the transition freeze date is Saturday (ABI/API is >> borken so there needs to be a transition), and for that I need libzmq >> up before it. >> >> Any objections? >> >> I've also noticed that not all the libzmq socket options are available >> in CZMQ, so this gives me some time to fix that. >> >> >> On 1 November 2016 at 14:48, Doron Somech <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Great news! >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Luca Boccassi <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Status update: >> >> >> >> - v2 APIs are gone from CZMQ: >> >> https://github.com/zeromq/czmq/pull/1531 >> >> https://github.com/zeromq/czmq/pull/1532 >> >> - PR is out to bump the libtool version and changelog for libzmq: >> >> https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/2184 >> >> - PR is out to backport the zmq_msg_t fix to 4.1: >> >> https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1/pull/155 >> >> >> >> Once it's all merged I will tag 4.2.0~rc1 first, then release 4.1.6 >> >> from >> >> zeromq4-1 since quite a few fixes have accumulated. Then I'll send PRs >> >> to prepare for CZMQ 4.0.0~rc1. >> >> >> >> After the RCs are out, I'll work on the changelogs/NEWS files (help is >> >> appreciated!) as they have fallen dramatically behind. >> >> >> >> I'll also prepare more formal release notes for the stable rels, the >> >> RCs >> >> will have just a quick note since they are RCs. >> >> >> >> On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 23:47 +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote: >> >> > Cool! >> >> > >> >> > I can take care of it if you like. Tentative plan: >> >> > >> >> > Tomorrow push an RC1 for libzmq, then the pr to CZMQ to retire v2 >> >> > APIs, >> >> > then the RC1 for CZMQ. >> >> > >> >> > If it's all good then a couple days later the finals. I would really >> >> > like >> >> > to make it for the debian 9 transition freeze which is Saturday. >> >> > >> >> > On Oct 31, 2016 22:23, "Doron Somech" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Sorry, yes, lets do it :) >> >> > > >> >> > > On Oct 31, 2016 11:44 PM, "Luca Boccassi" <[email protected]> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > >> Ping :-) >> >> > >> >> >> > >> On Oct 28, 2016 18:48, "Luca Boccassi" <[email protected]> >> >> > >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > >>> I have sent a solution for the alignment problem that solves the >> >> > >>> sigbus >> >> > >>> problem without breaking ABI compat (plus follow-up for VC++ - >> >> > >>> sorry >> >> > >>> Windows guys https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/2179 ). >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> I tested the alignment and sigbus problem on x86_64 by enabling >> >> > >>> alignment check with: >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> __asm__("pushf\norl $0x40000,(%rsp)\npopf"); >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> All was fine. >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> I ran tests built from the zeromq4-1 repository against a shared >> >> > >>> lib >> >> > >>> from the head of libzmq repo, and they all run fine minus the >> >> > >>> ZMQ_REQ_CORRELATE one but that option was borken anyway. >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> This allows us to do a release now, and then when we are ready we >> >> > >>> can do >> >> > >>> the ABI breakage, without blocking 4.2. Which is nice since it >> >> > >>> means >> >> > >>> it >> >> > >>> might make it for Debian 9! >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> So, Doron et al, shall we do the bump this weekend? >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 17:12 -0500, Thomas Rodgers wrote: >> >> > >>> > I will have some time most likely the week of Nov6 (off for a >> >> > >>> > week >> >> > >>> > of >> >> > >>> C++ >> >> > >>> > Committee 'fun') to test different message size alternatives. >> >> > >>> > I'll >> >> > >>> follow >> >> > >>> > up with my results here for consideration the next time we are >> >> > >>> inclined to >> >> > >>> > break the ABI compatibility :) >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > On Sunday, October 16, 2016, Brian Knox >> >> > >>> > <[email protected]> >> >> > >>> wrote: >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > > A new stable version would definitely help me in my quest to >> >> > >>> > > get >> >> > >>> ZeroMQ >> >> > >>> > > support enabled by default in rsyslog in distros. >> >> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > > On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 2:40 PM Doron Somech >> >> > >>> > > <[email protected]> >> >> > >>> wrote: >> >> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > >> I say lets bump. >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >> On Oct 15, 2016 20:32, "Luca Boccassi" >> >> > >>> > >> <[email protected]> >> >> > >>> wrote: >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >>> As Thomas said, false sharing would be a real issue with >> >> > >>> > >>> 96. >> >> > >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> > >>> So given a release is long due, at this point I'd say to >> >> > >>> > >>> drop >> >> > >>> > >>> this >> >> > >>> for >> >> > >>> > >>> the moment. >> >> > >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> > >>> What do we do for the change to union for zmq_msg_t? Bump >> >> > >>> > >>> ABI >> >> > >>> version or >> >> > >>> > >>> not? >> >> > >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> > >>> On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 09:53 +0300, Doron Somech wrote: >> >> > >>> > >>> > No new socket type, I worked at the time on binary >> >> > >>> > >>> > message >> >> > >>> > >>> > type, >> >> > >>> might >> >> > >>> > >>> > complete it sometime, but it is not urgent. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > If there is a lot of performance penalty we can give it >> >> > >>> > >>> > up, >> >> > >>> > >>> > I >> >> > >>> will >> >> > >>> > >>> > find another solution for the Radio-Dish. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > What about 96 bytes? same penalty? >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > Regarding the binding, I'm not sure. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Luca Boccassi < >> >> > >>> [email protected]> >> >> > >>> > >>> wrote: >> >> > >>> > >>> > > On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 09:41 +0300, Doron Somech wrote: >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> Sorry for the late response, increasing the msg_t >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> structure >> >> > >>> will be >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> great, however this will require changing a lot of >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> binding. >> >> > >>> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > >>> > > I think I remember we need it for the new socket types, >> >> > >>> > >>> > > is >> >> > >>> > >>> > > that >> >> > >>> > >>> correct? >> >> > >>> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > >>> > > There is a large performance penalty (intuitively due >> >> > >>> > >>> > > to >> >> > >>> > >>> > > not >> >> > >>> fitting >> >> > >>> > >>> > > into a single cache line anymore, but haven't ran >> >> > >>> perf/cachegrind), >> >> > >>> > >>> and >> >> > >>> > >>> > > the throughput with vsm type messages goes down by 4% >> >> > >>> > >>> > > (min) >> >> > >>> and 20% >> >> > >>> > >>> > > (max) for TCP, and 36% (min) 38 (max) for inproc, which >> >> > >>> > >>> > > is >> >> > >>> quite a >> >> > >>> > >>> lot, >> >> > >>> > >>> > > so we need to be sure it's worth it. >> >> > >>> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > >>> > > Regarding the bindings, after a quick search on the >> >> > >>> > >>> > > Github >> >> > >>> org, I >> >> > >>> > >>> could >> >> > >>> > >>> > > only see: >> >> > >>> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > >>> > > https://github.com/zeromq/lzmq/blob/master/src/lua/lzmq/ >> >> > >>> > >>> ffi/api.lua#L144 >> >> > >>> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > >>> > > https://github.com/zeromq/clrzmq4/blob/master/lib/zmq.cs#L28 >> >> > >>> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > >>> > > https://github.com/zeromq/pyczmq/blob/master/pyczmq/zmq.py#L >> >> > >>> 177 >> >> > >>> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > >>> > > Other bindings just import zmq.h. Did I miss any? >> >> > >>> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> Sorry for disappearing, baby and full time job is a >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> lot >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> :-), >> >> > >>> > >>> hopefully >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> I'm back... >> >> > >>> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > >>> > > No worries, perfectly understandable :-) >> >> > >>> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Luca Boccassi < >> >> > >>> > >>> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> > Sorry, I meant if we go with (1), not (2), we might >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> > bump >> >> > >>> the size >> >> > >>> > >>> as >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> > well, since we are already doing another >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> > ABI-breaking >> >> > >>> change. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> > I agree on the solution as well. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> > On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 17:12 +0200, Pieter Hintjens >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> > wrote: >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> I'm confused between the (1) and (2) choices, and >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> can't >> >> > >>> see where >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> bumping the message size fits. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> Nonetheless, I think bumping the size, fixing the >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> alignment >> >> > >>> > >>> issues, >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> and bumping the ABI version is the best solution >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> here. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Luca Boccassi < >> >> > >>> > >>> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > I've given some more thoughts and testing to the >> >> > >>> alignment >> >> > >>> > >>> issue. I can >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > reproduce the problem by enabling alignment >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > checks >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > on >> >> > >>> x86 too. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > But most importantly, I think we cannot get away >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > from >> >> > >>> bumping >> >> > >>> > >>> the ABI >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > with this fix, however we rearrange it, simply >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > because >> >> > >>> > >>> applications need >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > to be rebuilt against the new header to be fixed. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > A >> >> > >>> simple >> >> > >>> > >>> rebuild of >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > the libzmq.so is not enough. And the way to do >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > this >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > is >> >> > >>> to bump >> >> > >>> > >>> the ABI >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > so that distros can schedule transitions and >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > rebuilds >> >> > >>> and so >> >> > >>> > >>> on. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > So the choice list is now restricted to: >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > 1) Bump ABI >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > 2) Revert the fix and leave everything broken on >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > sparc64 >> >> > >>> and >> >> > >>> > >>> some >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > aarch64 (rpi3 seems not to be affected, must >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > depend >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > on >> >> > >>> the SoC >> >> > >>> > >>> flavour) >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > If we go with 2, we might as well get 2 birds >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > with >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > one >> >> > >>> stone >> >> > >>> > >>> and bump >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > the zmq_msg_t size to 128 as we have talked about >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > in >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > the >> >> > >>> past. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > Doron, this would help with the new UDP based >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > socket >> >> > >>> types >> >> > >>> > >>> right? >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > Pros of bumping msg size: >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > - we can get rid of the malloc() in the lmsg type >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > case >> >> > >>> as all >> >> > >>> > >>> the data >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > will fit >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > Cons: >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > - for the vsm/cmsg type cases (for most >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > architectures >> >> > >>> anyway) >> >> > >>> > >>> it won't >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > fit anymore into a single cacheline >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > Given all this, I'd say we should go for it. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > Opinions? >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 16:59 +0100, Luca Boccassi >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> Hello, >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> Trying to give some thoughts again on the libzmq >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> 4.2 >> >> > >>> release. >> >> > >>> > >>> It's >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> really long overdue! >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> The main issue from my point of view is this >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> change: >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/commit/ >> >> > >>> > >>> d9fb1d36ff2008966af538f722a1f4ab158dbf64 >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> -typedef struct zmq_msg_t {unsigned char _ >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> [64];} >> >> > >>> zmq_msg_t; >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> +/* union here ensures correct alignment on >> >> > >>> architectures >> >> > >>> > >>> that require >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> it, e.g. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> + * SPARC >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> + */ >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> +typedef union zmq_msg_t {unsigned char _ [64]; >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> void >> >> > >>> *p; } >> >> > >>> > >>> zmq_msg_t; >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> This is flagged by the common ABI checkers tools >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> as >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> an >> >> > >>> ABI >> >> > >>> > >>> breakage >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> (see: http://abi-laboratory.pro/trac >> >> > >>> ker/timeline/zeromq/ ). >> >> > >>> > >>> And it makes >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> sense from this point of view: if some >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> applications >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> on >> >> > >>> some >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> architectures are broken due to wrong alignment, >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> they >> >> > >>> would >> >> > >>> > >>> need to be >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> rebuilt, and the way to ensure that is to bump >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> the >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> ABI >> >> > >>> > >>> "current" digit >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> to make sure maintainers do a rebuild. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> On the other hand, signaling an ABI breakage is >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> a >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> pain, >> >> > >>> and a >> >> > >>> > >>> cause of >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> major churn for packagers and maintainers. It >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> means >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> for >> >> > >>> > >>> example a new >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> package has to be created (eg: libzmq5 -> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> libzmq6), >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> and >> >> > >>> a >> >> > >>> > >>> transition has >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> to be started and all reverse dependencies need >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> to >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> be >> >> > >>> > >>> rebuilt. And if >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> this is pointless for all save a few corner >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> cases >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> (eg >> >> > >>> SPARC64 >> >> > >>> > >>> as for >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> above) it's all quite frustrating. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> So we have a choice to make before we release >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> 4.2, >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> four >> >> > >>> > >>> possibilities as >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> far as I can see: >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> 1) Ignore the ABI checkers and get yelled at by >> >> > >>> maintainers >> >> > >>> > >>> and >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> packagers. Also the SPARC64 users will most >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> likely >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> NOT >> >> > >>> get >> >> > >>> > >>> their bug >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> fixed >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> 2) Bump ABI revision to 6 and get yelled at by >> >> > >>> maintainers >> >> > >>> > >>> and packagers >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> 3) Revert the above change and postpone it to >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> when >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> we >> >> > >>> have a >> >> > >>> > >>> more >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> generally useful reason to break ABI (bump >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> zmq_msg_t >> >> > >>> from 64 >> >> > >>> > >>> to 128 >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> bytes for example, Doron?) >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> 4) Try to be clever and revert the above change >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> and >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> use >> >> > >>> > >>> something like >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> #pragma pack(8). This will fool the ABI checkers >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> (I >> >> > >>> tried >> >> > >>> > >>> it), and given >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> that typedef is only used externally to allocate >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> the >> >> > >>> right >> >> > >>> > >>> size it >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> shouldn't actually affect anything, apart from >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> the >> >> > >>> users of >> >> > >>> > >>> SPARC64 >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> which should get the bugfix with this too. This >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> is >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> very >> >> > >>> > >>> sneaky :-) >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> CC'ing Lazslo, the Debian maintainer, given what >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> we >> >> > >>> choose to >> >> > >>> > >>> do might >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> result in a lot of work for him :-) >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> Opinions? >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> Luca Boccassi >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> On Tue, 2016-05-03 at 10:39 +0200, Pieter >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> Hintjens >> >> > >>> wrote: >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > Hi all, >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > I'm just throwing some ideas on the table. We >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > have a >> >> > >>> good >> >> > >>> > >>> package of >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > work on master and it's probably time to make >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > a >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > 4.2 >> >> > >>> release. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > Luca has already back-ported the >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > enable/disable >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > draft >> >> > >>> > >>> design from >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > zproject (CZMQ et al). Yay! So we can now >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > release >> >> > >>> stable >> >> > >>> > >>> master >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > safely, while continuing to refine and extend >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > the >> >> > >>> draft API >> >> > >>> > >>> sections. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > I propose: >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - to end with the stable fork policy; this was >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > needed >> >> > >>> years >> >> > >>> > >>> ago when >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > we had massively unstable masters. It's no >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > longer >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > a >> >> > >>> problem. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - to use the github release function for >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > libzmq >> >> > >>> releases >> >> > >>> > >>> and deprecate >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > the separate delivery of tarballs. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - we aim to make a 4.2.0 rc asap, then fix any >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > issues >> >> > >>> we >> >> > >>> > >>> get, with >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > patch releases as usual. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - we backport the release function to older >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > maintained >> >> > >>> > >>> releases (4.1, >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > 3.2) so that their tarballs are provided by >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > github >> >> > >>> instead >> >> > >>> > >>> of >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > downloads.zeromq.org. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > Problems: >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - this will break a few things that depend on >> >> > >>> > >>> downloads.zeromq.org. To >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > be fixed as we go. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - github tarballs are not identical to source >> >> > >>> tarballs, >> >> > >>> > >>> particularly >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > they lack `configure`. I propose changing our >> >> > >>> autotools >> >> > >>> > >>> build >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > instructions so they always start with >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > `./autogen,sh` >> >> > >>> no >> >> > >>> > >>> matter where >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > the sources come from. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > I think this will work and also let us >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > gracefully >> >> > >>> > >>> deprecate/switch off >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > the downloads box. >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > -Pieter >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > [email protected] >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > [email protected] >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> [email protected] >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > >>> >> >> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >> >> > >>> > >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> >> > >>> > >> [email protected] >> >> > >>> > >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> >> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > >>> > zeromq-dev mailing list >> >> > >>> > [email protected] >> >> > >>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
