Re: Updated: 1.7.0-34 (...and a plea)

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com>]

On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 06:16:15PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Dec  8 12:01, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 12:07:33PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >Btw., does anything speak against opening Cygwin up for public testing
>> >on the Cygwin main list?
>> 
>> I think it is a good idea but I'd like to start tracking 1.7.x like a
>> normal release and increasing the x with each new release.  That will
>> allow us to figure out problems from source code more easily.
>
>I thought we stick to 1.7.0 until we create the first actual release in
>which case we bump the version to 1.7.1.  After that we bump every time
>again, as in earlier releases.

Does it really matter?  I've never been a big fan of tracking versions
outside of CVS.  There is a rationale for tracking the version bump
since we can figure out what 1.7.1 relates to but not 1.7.0-39.  We
could CVS tag each release with a '-39' but we currently only do that
sporadically as needed.

>> I don't think there is any reason for people to start rebuilding their
>> packages now either.  That will happen over time when 1.7.x is finally
>> adopted.
>
>Btw., when 1.7 is adopted, we will have to make release-2 an independent
>directory again, right?  Otherwise we will still pull in new 1.5 packages
>which will have inferior features.

I think that when 1.7 is adopted

release-2 -> release
release -> release-deprecated

and we make setup.exe changes to accommodate that.

cgf