Subject: Re: bash-2.x
From: [email-masked] (Geoffrey Noer)

24 Jul 1998 09:13:52 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Cc: "ir. Wendy" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

On Thu, Jul 23, 1998 at 10:58:13AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
[...]
> What about 'if you choose to use beta software, you suffer?'  And why
> is cygnus distributing a beta shell with gnu-windows?

My installed copy of the b19 release includes bash 2.01.1, not a beta
of bash 2.02.

In any case, we have called the GNU-Win32 net releases themselves
"betas" so far.  As long as that is the case, I would have no problem
including a stable beta version of bash.  202 fixes numorous problems
(including the one where control-C kills backgrounded applications
which is my favorite fix).

It is possible that we will drop the beta designation on the GNU-Win32
net releases at some point.  I have been putting that off, waiting
until we believe that Cygwin32 fully conforms to POSIX.1, some
performance improvements are made, etc...  But I suppose that's not
entirely necessary.  I tend to view the majority of software packages
(including Windows 95) as really being "beta" quality but I may be
overly paranoid...

-- 
Geoffrey Noer
[email-masked]
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".