On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 11:11:03 +0900 Takashi Yano via Cygwin-developers wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 20:22:19 +0900 > Takashi Yano via Cygwin-developers wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 14:38:42 +0900 > > Takashi Yano via Cygwin-developers wrote: > > > On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 09:33:28 +0900 > > > Takashi Yano via Cygwin-developers wrote: > > > > On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:45:41 +0900 > > > > Takashi Yano via Cygwin-developers wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 03:17:51 +0900 > > > > > Takashi Yano via Cygwin-developers wrote: > > > > > > Hi Corinna, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:06:13 +0200 > > > > > > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 18 14:30, Takashi Yano via Cygwin-developers wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Corinna, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:19:12 +0200 > > > > > > > > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Takashi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 1 20:47, Takashi Yano via Cygwin-developers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > Revise the patch to fit the current git head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are you satisfied with the code? If you want to merge it, > > > > > > > > > I'd bump Cygwin to 3.2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since this new implementation has both advantages and disadvantages, > > > > > > > > there might be some options. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Default to new implementation and leave the current one as an > > > > > > > > alternative. Switch them using the environment CYGWIN. > > > > > > > > 2) Default to current implementation and add the new one as an > > > > > > > > alternative. Switch them using the environment CYGWIN. > > > > > > > > 3) Adopt only new implementation and throw the current one away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you really want to maintain twice as much code doing the same stuff > > > > > > > and constantly having to ask users which version of the code they are > > > > > > > running? The maintenance cost outweighs the advantages, IMHO. > > > > > > > Personally I'd go for option 3. > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I feel a tinge of sadness to discard the current code, > > > > > > however, your opinion sounds reasonable. > > > > > > > > > > > > I will submit a new patch in which all the codes specific to the > > > > > > current implementation are removed. > > > > > > > > > > Attached is the patch in git format-patch format. > > > > > All the codes specific to the current implementation are removed. > > > > > > > > > > Despite the utmost care, the changes are relatively large, so some > > > > > degradation may exist. > > > > > > > > > > I will appreciate if you could test. > > > > > > > > There were still unused code. Please try attached patch instead. > > > > > > Changes: > > > * Do not activate pseudo console if it is already activated for > > > another process on same pty. > > > > Changes: > > * Fix a bug in the latest change. > > Changes: > * Fix a handle leak caused when spawn is called with mode != _P_OVERLAY. This patch cannot be applied cleanly against current git head. Please use attached patch instead. -- Takashi Yano