[patch] manifest, and test release

[Max Bowsher]

Brian Dessent wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>
>>>>>> +    name="RedHat.Cygwin.Setup"
>>>>
>>>> ... perhaps just "Cygwin.Setup" here ?
>>>>
>>> To be honest I have no idea, but was going by what the SDK says.  About
>>> 'name' it says: "Uniquely names the application or assembly. Use the
>>> following format for the name: Organization.Division.Name. For example
>>> Microsoft.Windows.mysampleApp. Required."
>>
>> Then perhaps "Cygwin.Setup.Setup" ?
>
> *shrug*  I guess I don't get what's wrong with using RedHat.

These days, are we actually related to Red Hat in any way except that they 
provide setup's web and CVS hosting?

>  The
> resources that get compiled into the DLL use "Red Hat" for "CompanyName"
> and "Cygwin" for "ProductName". They own the copyright on the DLL code
> and probably a good chunk of the setup code, not to mention the
> trademark.  Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I'm happy to use Red Hat's name if they want us too, but I'm concerned about 
implying a stronger association than actually exists. AFAIK, it has been 
many years since Red Hat had any direct involvment with setup's development, 
and I'm concerned that Red Hat might not want us to use their name under 
those circumstances.

Max.