This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers 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: 1.7.1 release date?


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

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...

I'm thinking of the recent discussion concerning ^H vs.
^?. I've still got a patch in my queue for terminfo, so I'd like to
roll that out before/simultaneously with cygwin-1.7.1; I'm pretty sure
there's a pending update for termcap, as well.
Right, that would make sense.
Indeed, the cygwin entry refers to linux here which has the wrong value for kbs/kb. This should be fixed in the cygwin entry.

Thomas


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