[zeromq-dev] ZeroMQ 4.2 release, planning

Fri Nov 4 11:46:19 CET 2016

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 <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
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20161104/3acdc603/attachment.sig>