delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin/2012/08/19/16:56:35

X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse AT dyndns DOT com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18JUrGriT8phIDMPv9Tyo/N
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 16:56:01 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Which version of cygwin 'rock solid'
Message-ID: <20120819205601.GB23680@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <CACgPhYo3QQno3VDTWeXMSnz4XSiGNCebSYeNTvntD8OXMEo3jw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20120819182522 DOT GA23680 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <804B822E-754F-4B9C-A98A-597B4D5614B4 AT cloudwerx DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <804B822E-754F-4B9C-A98A-597B4D5614B4@cloudwerx.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT 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 Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 07:28:31PM +0000, Devin Nate wrote:
>Yeah, we won't be forking a new version...  We'll either go commercial
>via Red Hat or select a 1.7.x version that works for us.  We want to be
>part if the effort and contribute as such.
>
>The real spirit of my question was this....  We develop software
>ourselves, and sometimes we put out a "stable / production" version
>which we know has more unproven features, or has undergone some major
>refactoring, and inspite of QA and testing and we expect more bugs.  At
>other times, we know that we've got a stable release and it's proven to
>work well.
>
>The spirit of my question "which version do you like" was in that
>light.  I follow the cygwin list, and constantly see reports of bugs
>and fixes, and use this snapshot or that...  Great work for sure.  It's
>hard for me to evaluate when the bugs are minor, or, where there has
>been a major refactoring and all the bugs are getting worked out.

I'm not sure if you're still fishing for Corinna or me to give you a
recommendation but I'm not going to do that.  I really don't have a
ready answer and the question is too open-ended to be useful even if I
did.  "Stable" might mean different things depending on what you're
doing.  If you have a long-running build then maybe there is a bug in
the current version which will cause a problem.  But, if you are
primarily interested in making sure a network connection stays up then
maybe the latest version is the one you want.  Or, maybe you're
accessing files from a new version of Samba.  In that case you also
probably want the newest version.

We do fix bugs constantly so, in general, the latest released version
should always be better than the previous version.  And, since it is
possible that we might add a new function or two to a new release,
you'll want to be using the latest if you ever want to upgrade the
version of ssh, bash, or associated dlls.  Otherwise, the newer binaries
won't work.

cgf

--
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 -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019