This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Bug in upset? [Was: Re: R: Problem [1.7]: link /bin/lzma -> xz]


On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:02:00PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> I've just done this for lzma to prove that it works and it does.
>
>Great! I'll make that change for each of the packages I've already
>"forked" for cygwin-1.7

Too bad you couldn't just stop there.

>> But then, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to be doing much package
>> reorganization in 1.5 since it is approaching the end of its life.  When
>> we shuffle things around in the 1.5 release we increase the possibility
>> of annoying support problems when 1.7 is released.
>
>Well, that's really off-point, because...

No, actually it's not.

But, a digression...

With your suggestion of an upset bug, I spent 15-20 minutes of my time
to debug and attempt to fix a problem and discovered a simple cockpit
error on your part.  Yet in your two voluminous responses on this
subject you haven't bothered to include a "Thank you" or "I'm sorry to
have bothered you".

I probably would just let this slide if this interchange hadn't followed
fairly closely on the heels of you publicly scolding me for not showing
the proper appreciation to someone whom you thought had provided a
patch.

I sense a comportment disparity here.

End digression...

So now that I'm not digressing, I'm disheartened that I have to argue
for code stabilization prior to a major release point.  I fully
understand that no one likes having to exercise discipline around a
release.  I don't enjoy waiting or managing branches myself.  And, I can
understand that most people would not voluntarily adopt a release
"freeze" if no one else was doing it.  So, since there was no policy in
place, there was no reason for any package maintainer to be thinking
along those lines.  I didn't think I'd have to argue for the wisdom of
such a proven release policy, though.

But, I can't say that I actually care that much.  My opinion was
indirectly solicited so I offered it.  The bottom line is that, no, I'm
not going to change release-2 from being a unionfs.  We can easily and
slowly transition in this direction without the requirement of a
wholesale switch.

I have not yet decided if sourceware will continue to run a copy of
upset on the old Cygwin 1.5 release directory when 1.7 goes live.  I
suspect that it will not.

cgf


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]