Re: 1.7.1 release date?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 05:04:00PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Dec  1 19:44, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Dec  1 13:10, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> > If we're keeping 1.5 then this is what I'd like to see:
>> > 
>> > 1) It is frozen.  New new updates.  I don't think the mailing list should be
>> > cluttered with new package issues and I don't want to keep running upset to
>> > generate two setup.ini's.
>> 
>> I agree.
>> 
>> > 2) You have to explicitly select it.  I'd rather not have a setup.exe
>> > which automatically chooses 1.5 if you're running on Windows 95.  I
>> > think the current setup.exe should pop up an error if it is attempted to
>> > be run on a unsupported OS.  Maybe there could still be one version of
>> > setup.exe but you have to supply a --legacy option or something.
>> 
>> In that case I'd prefer an explicit setup-1.5.exe.
>> 
>> > 3) Optionally: Any mention of 1.5 be on it's on web page away from the
>> > front page.
>> 
>> Right, just as a side-note for 9x users in an unobtrusive place:
>> 
>>   "For the old release which works on Windows 95/98/Me, look 
>>    <href="win-9x.html>here</href>"
>
>Followup:
>
>- I patched setup-1.7 to refuse a 9x install.  I'm just going to build
>  this and then upload to cygwin.com.
>
>What I'm planning to do between today and Sunday:
>
>- Release the last Cygwin-1.7.0 beta today.
>
>  Question: Shall I add the getopt patch?
>
>- Upload the new setup-1.7.exe to cygwin.com, but do not yet rename it
>  to setup.exe.
>
>- HEADSUP to cygwin-apps: No new 1.5 packages.
>
>- Copy setup.exe to setup-1.5.exe.
>
>  Question: Should we call it setup-9x.exe?

I think setup-legacy makes more sense.

>- Copy the old documentation to cygwin.com/1.5
>
>- Create a win-9x.html page which just contains a short drivel about
>  Windows 9x not being supported anymore and for sake of the 4 9x users
>  we still provide an unsupported old release of Cygwin.  Please use
>  setup-1.5.exe to install that old unsupported version.  Did I mention
>  that it's unsupported?  Oh and, old documentation is available under
>  cygwin.com/1.5/{cygwin-api/cygwin-api,cygwin-ug-net/index,faq}.html

Doesn't calling it "win-9x" almost guarantee the "What about Windows ME"
question?

>- Bump the version number of Cygwin to 1.7.1.
>
>- Create the release package but do not yet upload it.
>
>- Create a new index.html page which drops the beta release fluff.
>
>So that leaves for the next week:
>
>- Waiting for your ok.
>
>- Upload Cygwin 1.7.1.
>
>- Create new "News" article for 1.7.1.
>
>- Commit web changes.
>
>- Write announcement.
>
>- Go into vacation immediatly.
>
>Does that sound about right?

I'm not sure how this relates to the current release directory layout.
I was thinking that release-2 -> release and release -> release-legacy.
I thought that setup-legacy.exe would install the old stuff and
setup.exe would, as always, install the current stuff.

So, the new setup.exe would have to know about this.  And, the setup.ini
would have to be changed too.

If you make the setup.exe's available, I can make all of the appropriate
adjustments at once.

Then, I wasn't planning on an immediate vacation but I'm sure my wife
won't mind if we schedule one.

cgf