moratorium on new setup.exe features, please?

moratorium on new setup.exe features, please?

[Christopher Faylor]

Can we concentrate on releasing a new version of setup.exe, please?

I'd like to eliminate the confusion that the current version of setup.exe
is causing.  It seems like we are in a standard "add one more thing" mode
when people are experiencing real problems and real confusion with the
currently released setup.exe.

The only thing that I really wanted for the next release was clickable
categories.  We have quite a bit more than that so I assume there will
be additional unforeseen headaches coming.  This is standard when you
add new features.  The more features you add, the more headaches you'll
get.

So, lets just concentrate on getting something out the door which solves
the known issues.  The biggest known issue right now is the "How do I
install everything?"

cgf

Re: moratorium on new setup.exe features, please?

[Charles Wilson]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> Can we concentrate on releasing a new version of setup.exe, please?
> 
> I'd like to eliminate the confusion that the current version of setup.exe
> is causing.  It seems like we are in a standard "add one more thing" mode
> when people are experiencing real problems and real confusion with the
> currently released setup.exe.
> 
> The only thing that I really wanted for the next release was clickable
> categories.  We have quite a bit more than that so I assume there will
> be additional unforeseen headaches coming.  This is standard when you
> add new features.  The more features you add, the more headaches you'll
> get.
> 
> So, lets just concentrate on getting something out the door which solves
> the known issues.  The biggest known issue right now is the "How do I
> install everything?"


There's one more urgent issue: I have a bzip2 and libbz2_0 package 
waiting for release, and the new setup must be able to handle that 
name(*)...I think most of these changes are in Robert's sandbox right 
now, but there's also a necessary pending patch to dump_setup.cc(?) in 
winsup/utils/

(*) sure, I could rename it, but I really would rather not...

IMO, this change is a bugfix on the current setup.exe, and not a new 
feature.  YOMV...

--Chuck

Re: moratorium on new setup.exe features, please?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 01:36:35PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>There's one more urgent issue: I have a bzip2 and libbz2_0 package 
>waiting for release, and the new setup must be able to handle that 
>name(*)...I think most of these changes are in Robert's sandbox right 
>now, but there's also a necessary pending patch to dump_setup.cc(?) in 
>winsup/utils/

I've checked in a fix for this but I expect that it won't be necessary
when setup.exe is released.  I'll probably be linking some kind of library
from cinstall or something.

cgf

Re: moratorium on new setup.exe features, please?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:58:31AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>Can we concentrate on releasing a new version of setup.exe, please?
>
>I'd like to eliminate the confusion that the current version of setup.exe
>is causing.  It seems like we are in a standard "add one more thing" mode
>when people are experiencing real problems and real confusion with the
>currently released setup.exe.
>
>The only thing that I really wanted for the next release was clickable
>categories.  We have quite a bit more than that so I assume there will
>be additional unforeseen headaches coming.  This is standard when you
>add new features.  The more features you add, the more headaches you'll
>get.
>
>So, lets just concentrate on getting something out the door which solves
>the known issues.  The biggest known issue right now is the "How do I
>install everything?"

Btw, I hope this isn't taken as a criticism of the current state of
setup.exe.  There are obviously a lot of wonderful improvements in it.

I'm just getting the same uneasy feeling that I get when I've gone too
long without a cygwin release.  I *know* that there is some major issue
that will cause a 20% increase in mailing list traffic just lurking in
the code somewhere.

cgf

Re: moratorium on new setup.exe features, please?

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>

> I've checked in a fix for this but I expect that it won't be necessary
> when setup.exe is released.  I'll probably be linking some kind of
library
> from cinstall or something.

The libraries not quite ready, but is getting there. Still sandbox only.

Rob

Re: moratorium on new setup.exe features, please?

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>

> Btw, I hope this isn't taken as a criticism of the current state of
> setup.exe.  There are obviously a lot of wonderful improvements in it.

Glad to hear you think so :}.

> I'm just getting the same uneasy feeling that I get when I've gone too
> long without a cygwin release.  I *know* that there is some major
issue
> that will cause a 20% increase in mailing list traffic just lurking in
> the code somewhere.

Heh. Well I only had 3 bits of feedback from a snapshot. Sigh.

Rob

Re: moratorium on new setup.exe features, please?

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>

> I think most of these changes are in Robert's sandbox right 
> now

They are.
 

Rob

Re: moratorium on new setup.exe features, please?

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>


> Can we concentrate on releasing a new version of setup.exe, please?

Sure. Just add another few days to my days, and I can do that.

> I'd like to eliminate the confusion that the current version of
setup.exe
> is causing.  It seems like we are in a standard "add one more thing"
mode
> when people are experiencing real problems and real confusion with the
> currently released setup.exe.

Nope. It's feature frozen. I announced that about 2 days ago. The *only*
reason I'm doing the major char *->String overhaul is to ensure there
are no more hidden heap corruptions occuring. The char[] seems to have
the potential to confuse gcc.

> The only thing that I really wanted for the next release was clickable
> categories.  We have quite a bit more than that so I assume there will
> be additional unforeseen headaches coming.  This is standard when you
> add new features.  The more features you add, the more headaches
you'll
> get.

Of course. I only got clickable categories done last week or so though
:}.

> So, lets just concentrate on getting something out the door which
solves
> the known issues.  The biggest known issue right now is the "How do I
> install everything?"

When it's ready, it'll ship. Don't worry.

Rob

Re: moratorium on new setup.exe features, please?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 01:40:44AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>Heh. Well I only had 3 bits of feedback from a snapshot. Sigh.

I'm waiting for the real release.  At that point I'll say something
like:  "I tried the new release of setup.exe version 4.192 and it
seems to me..."

I can't figure out what will come after that but I'm sure it will
be cogent.

cgf