Llama.cpp v0.1.0
satvikpendem
42 points
8 comments
August 17, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 84.1ms across 8,687 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- llama.cpp kristianpaul · 21 pts · August 12, 2026 · 77% similar
- vLLM v0.28.0 mrrrcs · 106 pts · August 29, 2026 · 63% similar
- Georgi Gerganov on llama.cpp/ggml future after Nvidia acquisition of HuggingFace theanonymousone · 73 pts · September 04, 2026 · 50% similar
- A1ex: A simple LLM coding agent in Lua uneven9434 · 24 pts · September 14, 2026 · 49% similar
- Show HN: Minute – Offline meeting notes on macOS with Whisper and llama.cpp mraza007 · 12 pts · July 28, 2026 · 47% similar
Discussion Highlights (4 comments)
tingletech
what's the significance of this? There is also a v0.1.1 from 4 hours ago, but these v0.1.x one's are on the releases tab https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/releases seems like stray tags?
asveikau
The github release pages for this project have me wondering who it is for. There are multiple releases per day. Also the Linux release binaries do not compile for CUDA. It's more reasonable for a lot of people to just follow master and build from source.
ggerganov
Didn't expect this to pop up here - please ignore for now. We are preparing official semantic versioning of llama.cpp and it's almost ready, but not quite. More info about the versioning process is here: https://github.com/ggml-org/ggml/discussions/1579
bellowsgulch
I thought I would add a comment asking the maintainers to consider not shipping major version zero, since it basically makes semantic versioning worthless and using SemVer and ignoring this advice basically suggests one wasn't reading it to begin with, but then I asked myself, "Why bother?" No one seems to take it seriously, and why would my voice matter anyway? I think https://0ver.org shows us the industry doesn't really care about software versioning. Hell, just drop the pretense and tell people to stick to commit hashes and dates.