I have updated the page for libzmq, but I do not have permissions to edit the CZMQ one.
Doron, may I please get permissions so I can update: http://czmq.zeromq.org/page:get-the-software On Sat, 2016-11-05 at 10:14 +0100, Michal Vyskocil wrote: > Hi, > > No problem, I know this is a lot of work. > > drafts sound even better than forks. > > Btw I love first changelog entry > > Michal > > Dne 5. 11. 2016 10:02 napsal uživatel "Luca Boccassi" < > [email protected]>: > > > Hi, > > > > I will update the website later tonight or tomorrow, I've been > > travelling so it's a bit hectic :-) > > > > Yes we discussed this a while ago, and thanks to the DRAFT APIs > > mechanism we can now stay on the same repository. Any unstable API will > > simply not be available unless enabled at build time. This way we get > > all the bug fixes without having to backport and when a new API is ready > > we mark it stable and enable it. > > > > On Sat, 2016-11-05 at 09:42 +0100, Michal Vyskocil wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > great work! > > > > > > I noticed the zeromq.org download page > > > http://zeromq.org/intro:get-the-software hasn't been updated yet. > > > > > > I also found out that the 4.2.0 release was tagged in libzmq > > > repository instead of zeromq4-2 fork. Does it means that zeromq > > > project is moving away from fork model for releases? Or it's just for > > > a zero release? > > > > > > Bye > > > Michal > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Luca Boccassi <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Final status update: > > > > > > > > CZMQ 4.0.0 is out, announcement has been sent: > > > > > > > > https://github.com/zeromq/czmq/releases/tag/v4.0.0 > > > > > > > > What a ride :-) > > > > > > > > libzmq 4.2.0 has been already uploaded to Debian (Thanks László for the > > > > very quick upload!), now I hope I can get CZMQ 4.0.0 up too by > > tomorrow. > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 13:35 +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > > >> Status update: > > > >> > > > >> CZMQ release notes PR is open: > > > >> > > > >> https://github.com/zeromq/czmq/pull/1542 > > > >> > > > >> I will be travelling now until the evening (might have some time at > > > >> airport), so if you have anything to add please merge and send a new > > > >> PR :-) > > > >> I would like to release v4.0.0 tonight, so that I can (barely!) make > > it > > > >> for Debian 9 transition freeze. Phew! > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 10:46 +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > > >> > Status update: > > > >> > > > > >> > libzmq 4.2.0 is out! Email sent to the announce list. > > > >> > > > > >> > https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/releases/tag/v4.2.0 > > > >> > > > > >> > CZMQ is next! > > > >> > > > > >> > On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 09:52 +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > > >> > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
