Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/11/07/13:33:32
Joe Buehler <jbuehler <at> spirentcom.com> writes:
>
> I see that there have been some bash problems recently. I am
> reporting this in case it hasn't been handled in an upcoming
> release of bash:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2006-11/msg00009.html
>
> $ bash -c 'echo `echo "\\""`'
$ bash -c 'echo `echo "\\""`'
"
$ echo $BASH_VERSION
3.2.3(5)-release
<gripe mode>
QUIT BEING LAZY, and test the experimental release before asking your
question. If more people would give positive feedback stating things
like "hey - bash-3.1-9 still has a bug that I verified was fixed in bash-3.2.3-
5, and I haven't seen any regressions when using the experimental version",
rather than asking rhetorical questions like "I know of this bug in 3.1, can
someone else be bothered to check if it is fixed in 3.2?", I would be more
inclined to promote bash-3.2.3-5 to current.
</gripe>
As it is, this week has already turned up two reports of unrelated issues that
both fall in this category - something unrelated to cygwin that is broken in
upstream 3.1 but fixed in upstream 3.2 - and zero reports of something broken
in 3.2.3-5, so I'm already quite close to calling 3.2.3-5 good enough to
promote. The only reason I express so much reluctance is that bash is so
fundamental to a large chunk of cygwin operation, and I was recently burned by
the backlash of my \r handling changes being promoted to current without enough
prior testing while it was in the experimental phase.
--
Eric Blake
volunteer cygwin bash maintainer
--
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 -