On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 07:06:30 -0400
C H <flydinslip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 06:27 Leonardo Arena <rnalrd_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 11:25 AM Natanael Copa <ncopa_at_alpinelinux.org>
> > wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I wonder if can drop armhf (armv6) support with the 3.10 release, now
> >> that we have armv7?
> > +1
> > /eo
> I'm new 'round here, but that might be sufficient motivation for a 4.0
> release, especially coupled with the other proposed changes -- GCC 9, maybe
> the python refactor, etc..
> Is there precedent for rolling major version numbers?
We changed from alpine 1.x to 2.x when there was an ABI breaking change
We changed from alpine 2.x to 3.x when we moved from uClibc to musl
In both those occasions an upgrade meant a full re-install. Older
packages would not work with new release.
Now, in practice, we do full reinstall every release anyway. `apk
upgrade -U -a` will replace all packages, so major version number roll
does not matter that much.
We have been talking about do 4.0 release with apk-tools 3.0, which will
have incompatible database format. That project is stalled though.
*If* we would ever switch to GNU libc, that would qualify for major
version number roll. But there are no plans for that, and will
hopefully never be.
So basically, the idea with use 3.10 was that we follow something
similar to semver, but I don't have strong opinion there. I think "4.0"
looks better than "3.10". On the other hand "3.11" can be fun. Alpine
Linux 3.11 for workgroups...
Received on Thu Apr 04 2019 - 13:30:01 UTC