X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,BOTNET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-id:	<4F2A15CE.90103@cygwin.com>
Date:	Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:49:18 -0500
From:	"Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-to:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: W7 and rebase [was "YA call for snapshot testing"]
References:	<0105D5C1E0353146B1B222348B0411A20A51C567C3 AT NIHMLBX02 DOT nih DOT gov>
In-reply-to:	<0105D5C1E0353146B1B222348B0411A20A51C567C3@NIHMLBX02.nih.gov>
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 2/1/2012 9:43 PM, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E] wrote:
> marco atzeri sent the following at Monday, January 30, 2012 3:20 PM
>> On 1/26/2012 1:07 PM, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E] wrote:
>>> marco atzeri sent the following at Friday, January 20, 2012 3:49 AM
>>>> my 2c$ : As rebaseall is almost mandatory on W7/64 and we are always
>>>> suggesting it to anyone with fork problem,
>>>
>>> My box was upgraded from XP Pro to W7 a couple of months ago.  At the
>>> beginning I was getting fork errors all the time when running scripts.
>>> It eventually went away (mostly*), though I don't remember whether it
>>> was as a result of something that knowingly did I did.
>>>
>>> (* It is now rare enough to not be a problem in practice.  I'll kill
>>> the script and start over.)
>>>
>>> The old guidance was that one shouldn't rebase unless one is told to.
>>> My question is whether that has changed.  Is it now, "rebase if you
>>> have W7"?
>>
>> Hi Barry, my guidance is rebasesall if you have fork errors.
>>
>> My personal experience is that W7/64 is much more prone to such issue
>> than previous XP/32
>
> Since I don't remember seeing the fork errors for a while - but would
> prefer to never see them ever again - is there any risk to running
> rebaseall?  I'm concerned with "The old guidance was that one shouldn't
> rebase unless one is told to."  Is it different on W7?

If you're not seeing a problem now, you don't need to run rebaseall.  If
you choose to run it anyway, so be it.  Given the almost constant state
of flux of DLLs on Windows machines, running it isn't any kind of
perpetual guarantee though.


-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -