Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:42:16 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Bash returns incorrect process status
Message-ID: <20040922204216.GH6266@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <753F1E41ACB9D51190C00090277218D80171EE39@WWMESSD206> <cis94r$btq$1@sea.gmane.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cis94r$btq$1@sea.gmane.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:31:34PM -0400, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
>Dolton Tony AB wrote:
>>I've noticed that bash doesn't get issued too often.
>It doesn't for three reasons:
>1. the maintainer for Cygwin (that would be me) is very busy
>2. The current version of Bash is very, very stable
>3. I'm hesitant (reluctant, even) to let a new release of Bash go out
>   the door without proper testing, even if it does fix a bug reported
>   on this list every-so-often - i.e. I don't jump on every patch to
>   apply it tout-de-suite and send out a new release: there's too much
>   that depends on Bash.. That, and reason #1..

These are all excellent reasons (especially 2 and 3), FWIW.  Bash is
such a crucial part of the release that it pays to be cautious.

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/