Let's formally change the non-existent release procedure to match what we're actually in the middle of doing [was Re: 1.7.1 release date?]

Christopher Faylor cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com
Sun Dec 6 19:24:00 GMT 2009


On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 12:35:19AM +0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 07:34:51AM +0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>>>Or we could use "release" for the first release, "release-2" for the
>>>second release, "release-3" for the third release, "release-4" for the
>>>fourth release, and so on.
>>
>>Or, we could have a formal discussion about totally changing the Cygwin
>>release model and not hide it in a mailing list thread with the subject
>>"1.7.1 release date" in a side thread about whimsical directory names.
>
>You're absolutely right.  If we were going to have a discussion about
>"totally changing" the "Cygwin release model" (you mean there actually
>/is/ one?), it should be a new thread.
>
>However, since what I did was merely documenting what we *already have
>done*, and considering how it might extrapolate to the future, I just
>didn't realise that that was what was going on.  It surely would have
>been clearer if I had said "release series" rather than just "release",
>and if I had said explicitly "1.3 doesn't fit this pattern, but what we
>have now does, so why change twice what we could just change once", and
>I neglected to express myself as clearly as I could have done, so sorry
>if that led you to a false inference about what I was actually trying
>to communicate.

It seems like you may be misinterpreting something here.  We didn't have
to make a new release directory for Cygwin 1.1, 1.3, 1.5.  1.7 is an
aberration.  It has never, to my knowledge, been suggested that the
separate directory technique is the way we want to do development in the
future.

The "Why don't you do releases like Ubuntu does?" question comes up
occasionally in the mailing list.  Personally, I think it would be a lot
of tedious work to have something like that but it isn't necessarily a
bad idea.  If we really want to consider this now, however, I think it
is a discussion that should take weeks not days.

cgf



More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list