From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: When will cygwin ever be stable? Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:43:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010430154440.A32086@redhat.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010430105401.00eb8220@san-francisco.beasys.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg01883.html On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:02:00AM -0700, Andy Piper wrote: >Don't get me wrong - I love cygwin and think Chris and co have done a >marvellous jobs, but as a user who simply wants cygwin to work well I >have never installed a version that actually has all the signifcant >bugs squashed. Each time I install, something might be fixed but >something else breaks. For instance C-c - using C-c in cygwin is >completely fundamental to its usability and yet it has been fairly >broken in the last two versions I have installed (1.1.8-2 and 1.3.1); What does "fairly broken" mean? I'm aware of only one problem which I announced a fix for a couple of days ago. >the headers change the whole time so that trying to maintain anything >that builds under cygwin is a complete nightmare. What does "the headers change the whole time" mean? What specifically caused you problems? Was it the move of headers to /usr/include/w32api? FWIW, the 1.3.1 release of Cygwin was a major release. That's one of the reasons that we incremented the middle number. We expected problems. There are problems. We'll be making a 1.3.2 release soon. Whether it fixes your problems or not is unknown at this point since I have no clear idea what your problems are. Without specific feedback we can't fix specific problems, so your specific problems are not specifically fixed. Perhaps you might want to try a snapshot. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple