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" <worwor AT bellsouth DOT net>
Reply-To: worwor AT bellsouth DOT net
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
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 AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT 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/