X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,TW_CG X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: Devin Nate To: "" Subject: Re: Which version of cygwin 'rock solid' Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 22:05:18 +0000 Message-ID: <3960715C-1EDF-4B0F-9DF9-C69F0E230FD3@cloudwerx.com> References: <20120819182522.GA23680@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <804B822E-754F-4B9C-A98A-597B4D5614B4@cloudwerx.com>,<20120819205601.GB23680@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: <20120819205601.GB23680@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id q7JM5ia0010383 Hi Christopher, That answers my question well enough. Thank you, and again great work on cygwin. Devin On Aug 19, 2012, at 2:56 PM, "Christopher Faylor" wrote: > 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 > -- 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