X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <446260AD.5080108@bellsouth.net> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 16:52:45 -0500 From: "Charles D. Russell" Reply-To: worwor@bellsouth.net User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin cygwin Subject: Subject: RE: Test: zip-2.31 and unzip-5.52 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Gary van Sickle wrote To the OP (sic!): "Old" != "Well Tested". You should be testing whatever program you're using to do backups, GNU, Cygwin, or otherwise. _____________________________ No testing that I could do is as comprehensive as the trial by thousands of users that any new version of zip will have been subjected to by the time it has been out for a few months. I suspect any release that is described as stable has already been much better tested than I could do. The biggest bug risk in my backups is in the scripts that generate the zip and tgz files. What I did not realize was that the modifications of zip for cygwin are not trivial and that separate testing is required. So I should not be in a big hurry to upgrade, even if the version of zip has been around a while. I don't unzip frequently enough to be a very helpful tester myself. -- 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/