1.7.1 release date?

Corinna Vinschen corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com
Fri Dec 4 19:27:00 GMT 2009


On Dec  4 13:10, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 06:26:46PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >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:
> [...]
> So, it seems like somewhere along the line a decision was made without
> consensus.

It wasn't a decision as far as I can see.  That was a discussion at a
very early stage and I didn't want to delay the 1.7 test any further
just due to directory names.

> Since we added the release-2 directory with no apparent problems to the
> mirrors,

It was a problem for some mirrors which don't have that much bandwidth,
but it wasn't a problem we could have avoided.  At least it was only
adding a new directory and not turning upside down the entire release
directory.

> I don't see why some more shuffling would cause any problems.

For my own mirror at home (granted, not an official one) I expect that
this takes about 8 hours, if nothing goes wrong and sourceware isn't too
busy with other mirror activity.  Unfortunately it will take at least 2
nights, since at one point in the middle of the night the provider will
drop the line forcefully.

Can't tell about other mirrors of course, but since it will take hours
to get the mirrors up to date again, there will be many hours on many
mirrors in which the release directory will be broken.

> 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.

I don't understand that.  If the need arises to have another release
directory it will be called release-3, then release-4, etc.  There's
nothing strange or puzzeling about that.

Well, there is obviously no middle ground betwen the two points of view.
If you really insist on the directory name, go ahead.  Just, please, do
it over the weekend and keep me informed as soon as the change has been
finished.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat



More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list