1.7.1 release date?

[Larry Hall (Cygwin Developers)]

On 12/04/2009 01:10 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 06:26:46PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Dec  4 12:13, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 05:28:08PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> We discussed this already multiple times.  The idea was not to rename
>>>> the new release directory.  It will be still called release-2 and only
>>>> the unionfs is supposed to go away.  Otherwise you would have to rebuild
>>>> the old setup version as well.  It's a lot of hassle for no gain.
>>>
>>> Well, apparently we didn't discuss it in this thread.  I think it is a
>>> very bad idea to have a "release" directory which contains old stuff and
>>> I think it is moderately bad idea to have a "release-2" directory
>>> permanently associated with Cygwin 1.7.
>>>
>>> If it is just rebuilding setup.exe that is the problem then I can do
>>> that.  I have the changes nearly ready to go, in fact.
>>
>> By renaming the directories you enforce an unnecessary update of 10 Gigs
>> per mirror.  Unnecessary, especially concidering the fact that this
>> isn't user-visible anyway.  After all it's just a name of a directory,
>> nothing else.  As long as we know what is what, it doesn't matter at all.
>
> I just searched for the initial discussion about this topic where you
> made the "it's too much bandwidth" argument.  It's puzzling because,
> after some discussion, you said:
>
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 02:15:59PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Ok, let's decide about renaming directories at some later point.
>
> Then Chuck Wilson said:
>
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:04:30AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> That is, no directory renaming at all (which would make the mirrors
>> happy) -- we "activate" by releasing a new setup?
>
> To which you replied:
>
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:02:15PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Yes! :)
>
> So, it seems like somewhere along the line a decision was made without
> consensus.
>
> Also, at some later point I made this observation:
>
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 03:47:05PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> I am not sure how much to worry about the effect on the mirrors.  It
>> seems like there would be an additional flurry of activity that would
>> eventually just die down.  I hate to make supportability decisions based
>> on external constraints.
>
> So, at least we're both being consistent.
>
> Since we added the release-2 directory with no apparent problems to the
> mirrors, I don't see why some more shuffling would cause any problems.
> The added bandwidth we're talking about is basically just a couple of
> full cygwin installs.  And, if the mirror understands hardlinks it is
> possible to just temporarily create a release-legacy directory which
> just hard links files back to the release directory.  Then the only
> data which would be transferred is presumably the inode information.
>
> I really don't like having things named incorrectly and, like I said,
> having a directory named "release" which is really an old release and a
> directory named "release-2" which is for Cygwin "1.7" is a recipe for
> future confusion for me, at the very least, and, I think, for others
> as well.

Is it too late to vote? :-) I agree with Chris here. Certainly there will be
some additional load on the mirrors if we change names but it's something
that affects them in a certain window of time and then evaporates. Having
"release" and "release-2" does open up the possibility for confusion of
"what's current?" for packagers and those that like to poke around behind
the scenes. This should be a minority but why shouldn't we make it clearer
and reduce our support load? Unless we know mirrors will be revolting if we
temporarily use more bandwidth, I believe we shouldn't let this argument
sway us.

-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?