So this doesn't change the size of the zmq_msg_t (at it is a union), so
internally there is no difference.
Anyway I'm not sure what is the reason for this extra pointer.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Luca Boccassi <luca.bocca...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Cool stuff!
>
> I was having a look at the changes in the public headers between 4.1
> and master, and there _might_ be a backward-incompatible ABI change
> between 4.1 and 4.2:
>
> -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;
>
> Given zmq_msg_t is very often allocated on the calling application's
> stack, having a different alignment between the application and the
> library might break stuff if the library is making assumptions based
> on it. Haven't delved deeper into it, does anyone have a better
> insight in how zmq_msg_t is handled internally?
>
> Kind regards,
> Luca Boccassi
>
> On 18 February 2016 at 09:12, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com> wrote:
> > libzmq versioning is unchanged for years. There's a 4.1 stable fork
> > that we apply fixes to, and will make one or two more releases of.
> > There's 4.2 arriving on master, with a mix of stable API and new draft
> > API. One thing we will do in 4.2 is clearly mark the draft API as
> > such, and perhaps not build it by default, from source packages. We're
> > using the same approach in CZMQ and other projects now.
> >
> > The goal with this is to allow shipment of the current master without
> > having 100% stability on the API. There are things we know we'll need
> > to refine and improve.
> >
> > -Pieter
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Mario Steinhoff
> > <steinhoff.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> So my question about the state of zmq versioning drifted in some kind
> >> of we-need-more-automation-for-the-docs initiative. Awesome :)
> >>
> >> I'd love to help with it but I am already busy with the jzmq stuff for
> now.
> >>
> >> But the first question is still unanswered:
> >>
> >>> With all this, whats the current status on libzmq versioning?
> >>
> >> Or does no answer mean that all my assumptions were correct?
> >>
> >> 2016-02-17 18:48 GMT+01:00 Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com>:
> >>> We could use this, yes.
> >>>
> >>> Volunteers? :)
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Michel Pelletier
> >>> <pelletier.mic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Read the docs is fantastic, I used it for pyczmq and it works great.
> Also
> >>>> it's not just software or a hosting service, the author (a local here
> in my
> >>>> neck of the woods) hosts "write the docs" conferences focusing on
> writing
> >>>> and producing good documentation:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.writethedocs.org/
> >>>>
> >>>> All together it's a powerful documentation ecosystem.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Michel
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have generators of various kinds: gitdown, mkman, which zproject
> >>>>> uses/plugs into. The commonality is text files that turn into man
> >>>>> pages and then various other formats that can be sent anywhere. I
> >>>>> don't think we need to *standardise* so much as decide on a format, a
> >>>>> host, and a safe way to upload after successful CI builds. We can
> have
> >>>>> many of these.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Arnaud Loonstra <
> arn...@sphaero.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> > Perhaps we can standardise on this? Perhaps even include some
> >>>>> > generators for it in zproject?
> >>>>> > I was starting to use Sphinx for Pyre as well. Now using it for
> >>>>> > multiple projects. I'm not familiar with how it works with other
> >>>>> > languages but for Python it's great.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > On 2016-02-17 10:39, Doron Somech wrote:
> >>>>> >> Take a look at readthedocs.org [9], it is what NetMQ is using and
> >>>>> >> completely automated. You manage the docs in the git repository.
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com
> >>>>> >> [10]>
> >>>>> >> wrote:
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>> Hmm, the tools we use to build the online docs are old and
> creaky,
> >>>>> >>> and
> >>>>> >>> date from long before we had neat CI automation. Meaning, we
> update
> >>>>> >>> the api site manually.
> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>> >>> Im doing that now. I think its time we look at pushing this
> >>>>> >>> directly
> >>>>> >>> to github pages, from Travis.
> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>> >>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Mario Steinhoff
> >>>>> >>> <steinhoff.ma...@gmail.com [1]> wrote:
> >>>>> >>> > Hi everyone,
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > I am a bit confused about the available information on libzmq
> >>>>> >>> versions.
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > The page at api.zeromq.org [2] says that we have:
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > - 4.2 (master)
> >>>>> >>> > - 4.1 (rc)
> >>>>> >>> > - 4.0 (stable)
> >>>>> >>> > - 3.2 (stable)
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > On the download page 4.0 is missing:
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > - a version-less master which "should be stable almost all the
> >>>>> >>> time" (4.2?)
> >>>>> >>> > - 4.1.4 ("stable")
> >>>>> >>> > - 3.2.5 ("legacy stable")
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > In libzmq, the NEWS file on master seems to be outdated (last
> >>>>> >>> update
> >>>>> >>> > in 2014). The doc folder in libzmq seems to be maintained but
> not
> >>>>> >>> in
> >>>>> >>> > sync with api.zeromq.org [3] (I checked today and some changes
> >>>>> >>> from the
> >>>>> >>> > last commit in that folder are not present on the site).
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > There are also maintained stabilization forks as per C4.1 for
> >>>>> >>> libzmq,
> >>>>> >>> > e.g. zeromq4-x (which contains 4.0?), 4-1, and 3-x (which
> >>>>> >>> contains
> >>>>> >>> > 3.2?).
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > And then there is this article: http://hintjens.com/blog:85
> [4]
> >>>>> >>> which
> >>>>> >>> > suggests in a very compelling way that software versions suck
> and
> >>>>> >>> to
> >>>>> >>> > ditch them altogether (yes I agree) but I cant find those SBOMs
> >>>>> >>> > anywhere so I assume that experiment did not went very far.
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > With all this, whats the current status on libzmq versioning?
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > Am I understanding right that:
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > - The libzmq repository is always the latest and greatest, and
> >>>>> >>> 4.2
> >>>>> >>> > looks like the last version Ill ever need™, its always stable
> >>>>> >>> and
> >>>>> >>> > follows the raw-draft-stable-deprecated process so its also
> >>>>> >>> always
> >>>>> >>> > backwards compatible.
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > - Stable releases are maintained for 3.2, 4.0, and 4.1 and
> >>>>> >>> sometimes
> >>>>> >>> > bugfixes get backported from 4.2.
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > - Release notes are only maintained for stable releases?
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > Is the outdated API site a bug or a feature? I am currently
> using
> >>>>> >>> the
> >>>>> >>> > text files in doc/ but I like to look at the fancy ZMQ logo
> when
> >>>>> >>> I
> >>>>> >>> > browse the API reference :-)
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > Cheers
> >>>>> >>> > Mario
> >>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>>> >>> > zeromq-dev mailing list
> >>>>> >>> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org [5]
> >>>>> >>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev [6]
> >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> >>> zeromq-dev mailing list
> >>>>> >>> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org [7]
> >>>>> >>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev [8]
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> Links:
> >>>>> >> ------
> >>>>> >> [1] mailto:steinhoff.ma...@gmail.com
> >>>>> >> [2] http://api.zeromq.org
> >>>>> >> [3] http://api.zeromq.org
> >>>>> >> [4] http://hintjens.com/blog:85
> >>>>> >> [5] mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> >>>>> >> [6] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> >>>>> >> [7] mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> >>>>> >> [8] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> >>>>> >> [9] http://readthedocs.org
> >>>>> >> [10] mailto:p...@imatix.com
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>>> > zeromq-dev mailing list
> >>>>> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> >>>>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
> >>>>> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> >>>>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
> >>>> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> >>>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> zeromq-dev mailing list
> >>> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> >>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mario Steinhoff
> >> https://github.com/msteinhoff
> >> https://twitter.com/msteinhofff
> >> T: +49 173 7265158
> >> In der Gelpe 79
> >> 42349 Wuppertal
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> zeromq-dev mailing list
> >> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > zeromq-dev mailing list
> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
