[zeromq-dev] ZeroMQ 4.2 release, planning

Luca Boccassi luca.boccassi at gmail.com
Fri Nov 4 10:52:51 CET 2016 

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 <luca.boccassi at gmail.com> 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" <luca.boccassi at gmail.com> 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 <somdoron at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Great news!
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Luca Boccassi <luca.boccassi at gmail.com>
>> > 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" <somdoron at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Sorry, yes, lets do it :)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Oct 31, 2016 11:44 PM, "Luca Boccassi" <luca.boccassi at gmail.com>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> Ping :-)
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> On Oct 28, 2016 18:48, "Luca Boccassi" <luca.boccassi at gmail.com>
>> >> > >> 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
>> >> > >>> > <bknox at digitalocean.com>
>> >> > >>> 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
>> >> > >>> > > <somdoron at gmail.com>
>> >> > >>> wrote:
>> >> > >>> > >
>> >> > >>> > >> I say lets bump.
>> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > >>> > >> On Oct 15, 2016 20:32, "Luca Boccassi"
>> >> > >>> > >> <luca.boccassi at gmail.com>
>> >> > >>> 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 <
>> >> > >>> luca.boccassi at gmail.com>
>> >> > >>> > >>> 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 <
>> >> > >>> > >>> luca.boccassi at gmail.com> 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 <
>> >> > >>> > >>> luca.boccassi at gmail.com> 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
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >>
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >>
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >
>> >> > >>> > >>> > >
>> >> > >>> > >>>
>> >> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________
>> >> > >>> > >> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >> > >>> > >> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> >> > >>> > >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >> > >>> > >
>> >> > >>> > >
>> >> > >>> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > >>> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >> > >>> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> >> > >>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list