This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: Next major Cygwin version?
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: The Cygwin-Talk Malingering List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:21:49 -0400
- Subject: Re: Next major Cygwin version?
- References: <bfc52fe005091412086c04e633@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Malingering List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:08:44PM -0600, Aaron Humphrey wrote:
>FIrst off, let me say that this is my first post to cygwin-talk, but
>I've been lurking on the main Cygwin list for a couple of years now,
>and using Cygwin since long before I had any idea how to figure out
>what the version number was--probably 5-6 years. Just after I fixed
>the boot sector I'd trashed while trying to install LILO, and gave up
>on Linux completely, but I still really wanted to use vi...
>
>Anyway, I remember being a little bit surprised when Cygwin jumped
>from 1.3.x to 1.5.x. I have no idea when the next major version
>number change is likely to take place, but I confess to being mildly
>curious as to what that number would be. I seem to recall that 1.4
>was used for the Red Hat commercial release of Cygwin or something
>like that, which would explain why that number was skipped. However,
>I also know that CVS has a fondness for odd version numbers, and likes
>to reserve the even ones for some usage that I can't remember.
The even numbers are reserved by the government. They maintain hidden
branches for their experiments in mind-control-through-cygwin. I guess
the experiments have been successful, if you're claiming never to have
seen a cygwin version 1.6.x.
cgf