Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/02/28/18:26:13
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 03:20:56PM -0600, Chuck Irvine wrote:
>I see that I've caused you some concern. Let me be more specific. Not
>being familiar with Cygwin "snapshots", I was tending to equate the term
>with what might go by the name "daily builds" in other projects. Folks
>are often warned that these are less stable then the "current stable
>release" and that care should be exercised.
Your understanding is correct. However as we converge on a new release,
the snapshots do become more stable. And, sometimes, as for the last few
months, we do enter periods of instability in cygwin where snapshots
are consistently better than the last release.
The recent period of instability is due to my efforts to implement
multi-threaded signal handling into cygwin. This was done for a Red Hat
contract (even though I still ended up doing this basically for gratis
in my "spare time"). The need for development hit during a time when
there were also some other destabilizing changes in the cygwin code
base. In a perfect world, I would have spaced out the releases to
give each bit of new functionality time to settle down. Unfortunately
events did not allow this.
Anyway, the most recent snapshots should be better than 1.5.7. There
are still a couple of reported problems but I don't think there are
any real regressions in functionality.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -