Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/01/27/15:07:27
William A. Hoffman wrote:
> So, from the feedback I am getting, it really boils down to a "not
> enough people to maintain the feature" issue. I don't think that
> people don't think that a stable release of cygwin would be a bad
> thing, it is just that there
> is no one to maintain it.
>
> The least intrusive approach I can think of is the following:
>
> Once a quarter, there is a cygwin release. All packages in curr, get
> automatically moved to cygwin-cur once a quarter.
>
> cygwin-curr, prev, curr, exp
>
> If bugs are reported for packages in cygwin-curr, they can be fixed,
> but no new versions are allowed. I would expect that this would
> provide a more stable cygwin with not much manual effort.
>
> I guess the problem is to convince folks, that this is a useful thing
> to do. As a cygwin user, I think it would provide a more stable
> platform.
I think it would unnecessarily delay people from updating to latest package
versions.
The point is *[curr] is meant to be stable*. Occasionally a problem may slip
through. Fine. That's what the option of reverting a package to [prev] is
for. When problems arise, they are fixed quickly, or the package is pulled,
and the [prev] reinstated to [curr].
If this is not good enough for you, then *just burn a CD*. There is no need
to force this artificial 'release' policy on the Cygwin project.
Max.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -