Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Reply-To: Cygwin List Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040228185342.039faad0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:25:57 -0500 To: Chuck Irvine , "'Cygwin List'" From: Larry Hall Subject: RE: Control-c not working in rxvt (for exiting jboss server) In-Reply-To: <001c01c3fe40$c1035910$6500a8c0@Ray> References: <6 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20040228153324 DOT 039d6410 AT 127 DOT 0 DOT 0 DOT 1> <001c01c3fe40$c1035910$6500a8c0 AT Ray> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I think Chris's response sums up the current state of the Cygwin DLL quite nicely and properly sets the expectations for recent snapshots. Obviously, in general, snapshot volatility can vary. People who try snapshots generally shouldn't expect that the snapshot will perform better than a release in every way. It could even not work at all. But the warnings are really raised to make sure people are aware that things might not work with a snapshot. It's setting a level of expectation appropriately so there's no great surprise if something isn't working quite right. It's not meant to imply that snapshots are somehow inherently dangerous and that using one, even if it ends up being completely broken, is an unrecoverable event. It just means you have to be prepared to fall back to the current release if things don't work out. Whether my comments make you more or less willing to try a snapshot now or in general, I don't know. Obviously, the choice is up to you. I'm not trying to force you to use one, if that would even be possible somehow. But I wanted to clarify this point for others who might be unsure of the reasons behind the warnings about snapshots. Larry At 04:20 PM 2/28/2004, Chuck Irvine you wrote: >Larry, > >I see that I've caused you some concern. Let me be more specific. Not >being familiar with Cygwin "snapshots", I was tending to equate the term >with what might go by the name "daily builds" in other projects. Folks >are often warned that these are less stable then the "current stable >release" and that care should be exercised. > >Chuck > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Larry Hall >> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 2:39 PM >> To: Chuck Irvine >> Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com >> Subject: RE: Control-c not working in rxvt (for exiting jboss server) >> >> >> At 02:08 PM 2/28/2004, Chuck Irvine you wrote: >> >I'm a little hesitant to go to the latest snapshot since I rely on >> >cygwin for many things. Do you think it is as safe as the current >> >version? >> >> >> What does that mean? What makes the "current version" >> "safe"? You are implying something here by your vagueness. >> The implications, more than likely, aren't synonymous with >> your intent. But you need to be more >> clear with your question if you expect to get any kind of >> meaningful answer. >> >> >> -- >> Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com >> RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office >> 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX >> Holliston, MA 01746 >> >> > > > >-- >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/ -- 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/