From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13141 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2008 15:44:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 13126 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Apr 2008 15:44:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from aquarius.hirmke.de (HELO calimero.vinschen.de) (217.91.18.234) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:44:03 +0000 Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id C6CC46D4312; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:44:00 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:44:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area Message-ID: <20080415154400.GL23852@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: <20080412151515.GG23852@calimero.vinschen.de> <48013F76.4D6B8FFC@dessent.net> <20080413094246.GJ23852@calimero.vinschen.de> <20080413193513.GA13302@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20080414095628.GA4069@calimero.vinschen.de> <20080414143631.GB18398@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <48041AC2.DA789E78@dessent.net> <20080415085515.GW23852@calimero.vinschen.de> <20080415090849.GZ23852@calimero.vinschen.de> <20080415141730.GA21313@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080415141730.GA21313@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00215.txt.bz2 On Apr 15 10:17, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >Having said that, should we really rename the registry keys, what do we > >do with the "Program Options" and the two "heap_foo" values? > > I'd like to keep the "Program Options" and nuke the "heap_foo" options. Maybe you can get rid of heap_chunk_in_mb but it's still not clear that we can get rid of heap_slop_in_mb. The strange allocation in 2003 and later is a problem and just because we had nobody complaining for a while doesn't mean the current slop value is always sufficient. I'm for keeping this option. > I also object to using "Red Hat" as the "owner" [...] Red Hat *is* the owner of the code, regardless of the registry key you want to use. I know that you have mixed feelings about Red Hat, however, assuming the code is owned by the FSF, would you object against a parent key name of FSF as well? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat