1.7.1 release date?

Christopher Faylor cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com
Sat Dec 5 18:23:00 GMT 2009

On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 10:31:24AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Dec  4 17:50, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 10:34:30PM +0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>> >Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >
>> >> And that also shows a misconception I was stumbling over:  Of course
>> >> we don't need new setup.exe and setup-legacy.exe files if we just
>> >> rename the directories, since it's all in the ini files anyway.
>> >
>> >  How does it know /which/ setup.ini file to download if you don't have two
>> >separate versions?
>> >
>> >  Also, since we're going to drop a new setup.exe in place of the old one,
>> >should we perhaps as a favour for the inevitable few who will be taken by
>> >surprise by this and might not have wanted to upgrade, make it put up a
>> >requester when it's about to do a 1.5->1.7 upgrade and get an explicit OK from
>> >the user (or fail in unattended mode)?  There are undoubtedly plenty of people
>> >who don't subscribe to the mailing list and won't know the changeover is
>> >happening.
>> So, if I'm getting this right, apparently there's something in updating
>> from 1.5 to 1.7 which will cause major problems for people who routinely
>> run setup.exe to update their installations.
>> In that case, I guess 1.7 isn't really ready to be released.  That's too
>> bad.
>I don't understand why you resort to sarcasm now.  We all know that the
>1.5 -> 1.7 upgrade will not be entirely smooth, after all there are lots
>of changes.  That doesn't mean 1.7 isn't ready for release, it just
>means the upgrade path is not something to be taken lightly.

It was only mildly sarcastic.  I was trying to point out the
consequences of this attitude.  If we think that the upgrade is going to
cause untold confusion then we either shouldn't be doing it or we should
be willing to live with it.

>There's especially the problem of the mount points.  User mount points
>will not be copied over to the /etc/fstab.d/$USER file.  That will catch
>a good amount of people by surprise.  Yes, it's easy to fix by running
>the copy-user-registry-fstab script, but it requires a manual step after

So, again, maybe we're not ready to upgrade then.  If you're aware of
problems which will cause people pain then we either note them or fix
them.  People *will* be seeing problems when they click on the "Install
Cygwin Now".  If I was more clueless, I'd see them myself, since I just
type "http://cygwin.com/setup.exe" in internet explorer when I want to
upgrade.  So, I would be blithely downloading a new version of cygwin
which could possibly end up confusing me.

So, it makes no sense to assume that we need to protect only the people
who have copied a version of setup.exe to their system and use it to
download their installation.  If we think there is a problem with people
being surprised by the upgrade then it needs to be solved by some other
method than just not renaming release-2 -> release.

And, for the record, I don't care about any problems a directory rename
might cause any private mirrors, including, coincidentally enough, my
own private mirror.  I think raising that issue in the context of this
discussion is counterproductive and selfish.


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list