1.7.1 release date?

Christopher Faylor cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com
Thu Nov 19 17:25:00 GMT 2009

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 05:15:48PM +0100, Thomas Wolff wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen schrieb:
>> On Nov 19 09:04, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>> Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
>>>> Corinna wrote:
>>>>> So, what do you all think about the shape 1.7 is in?
>>>>> It surely has still bugs, but is it stable enough that we can
>>>>> contemplate a release, finally?
>As a general concern, considering this is a major step and there was a 
>showstopper with X Windows very recently, I would let it settle for a 
>few weeks (say 2 or 3) before *I* would dare this step now.
>>>> I think we can.  I've been using it in a production environment for
>>>> quite a while with no issues.
>The X issue was one. Another might be installation. I reported trouble 
>on one machine recently where I could not install cygwin to a network 

And, is this a regression?

>Assume just 1% of cygwin users have this trouble and image the 
>number of complaints...

Imagine of 10% of cygwin users started using Windows 7.

>I have the idea it could hopefully help to try again with today's update 
>of setup.exe:
>> - Create directories with access rights which are more friendly to
>>   native Windows processes.
>but unfortunately I have only access to that machine once a week, so 
>I'll try next Monday.

I'm not overly concerned about people installing to network drives.  We
can always deal with that later.  No one is claiming that 1.7.1 will be
perfection.  I believe that it fixes many problems that are in 1.5.25
(witness the pthread_join deadlock report) and it's about time that it
went live.

>>> I agree -- at least from my personal experience. I think the major
>>> concern is, do you guys (the folks most versed in the charset/lang
>>> issues) think that the charset/lang stuff is good enough (even if not
>>> perfect) for a release?
>I think this stuff is working quite well now, with one small but 
>significant issue: I had suggested to add set LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 to 
>cygwin.bat and I'd like to strongly repeat this suggestion as it might 
>avoid much trouble.

The point about releasing something is that, at some point, you have to
stop making "small but significant" changes and "just do it".

>>> 2) The terminal handling stuff Andy Koppe mentioned: making "console"
>> Do you mean Thomas Wolf by any chance?  He has that console patch
>> in the loop which adds mouse event reporting.  The patch doesn't
>> seem to interfere with current console handling, except for the
>> change from ESC[9m to ESC[2m for dim.  The latter doesn't show up
>> in termcap and terminfo so it shouldn't matter.
>> Changing the Shift-F key sequences?  Is it really worth it, given
>> that they follow at least *some* standard?  I don't think so.
>> Everything else in this thread is either enhancement or bug fix,
>> but not a visible, backward-incompatible change in behaviour.
>This is all not crucial for the 1.7 step although I would have liked to 
>get it done earlier, plus my additional one-line patch for 
>Alt-AltGr-prefixing, plus VT100 graphics (as suggested by Andy) which I 
>am working on...

Right, absolutely none of these are requirements for 1.7.1.

The only thing that really bothers me about the 1.7.1 release is that
it doesn't pass the Cygwin test suite.  I don't think anyone has run
the test suite in a while, which is a real shame.

I'd like to repeat my request for someone to step forward for the
thankless job of being test suite guru.  There are a lot of tests that
we could be running on Cygwin and I think that a formal test suite would
go a long way towards making it more stable.


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list