From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7482 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2008 17:59:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 7472 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Apr 2008 17:59:43 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-72-74-94-32.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO ednor.cgf.cx) (72.74.94.32) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:59:25 +0000 Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 0CC862B352; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:59:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:59:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area Message-ID: <20080415175923.GA21976@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: <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> <20080415154400.GL23852@calimero.vinschen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080415154400.GL23852@calimero.vinschen.de> 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/msg00217.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 05:44:00PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >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? Ok, since my motives for having an opinion are in question, I will withdraw from the discussion, rather than spending time on pointless self-justification. cgf