On Apr 15 10:17, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >Having said that, should we really rename the registry keys, what do we > >do with the "Program Options" and the two "heap_foo" values? > > I'd like to keep the "Program Options" and nuke the "heap_foo" options.
Maybe you can get rid of heap_chunk_in_mb but it's still not clear that we can get rid of heap_slop_in_mb. The strange allocation in 2003 and later is a problem and just because we had nobody complaining for a while doesn't mean the current slop value is always sufficient. I'm for keeping this option. > I also object to using "Red Hat" as the "owner" [...] Red Hat *is* the owner of the code, regardless of the registry key you want to use. I know that you have mixed feelings about Red Hat, however, assuming the code is owned by the FSF, would you object against a parent key name of FSF as well? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat