From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28275 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2008 18:01:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 28144 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Dec 2008 18:01:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-96-233-71-97.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (96.233.71.97) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:01:07 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A0113C026; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:00:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 2DEA45B5F52; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:00:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:01:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com, cygwin-developers@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Updated: 1.7.0-34 (...and a plea) Message-ID: <20081208180050.GA27323@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com, cygwin-developers@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com, cygwin-developers@cygwin.com References: <20081126124259.GA30831@calimero.vinschen.de> <20081205110733.GQ12905@calimero.vinschen.de> <20081208170152.GA27205@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20081208171615.GB12905@calimero.vinschen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081208171615.GB12905@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: 2008-12/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2 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