On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 06:16:15PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Dec 8 12:01, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 12:07:33PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >Btw., does anything speak against opening Cygwin up for public testing >> >on the Cygwin main list? >> >> I think it is a good idea but I'd like to start tracking 1.7.x like a >> normal release and increasing the x with each new release. That will >> allow us to figure out problems from source code more easily. > >I thought we stick to 1.7.0 until we create the first actual release in >which case we bump the version to 1.7.1. After that we bump every time >again, as in earlier releases.
Does it really matter? I've never been a big fan of tracking versions outside of CVS. There is a rationale for tracking the version bump since we can figure out what 1.7.1 relates to but not 1.7.0-39. We could CVS tag each release with a '-39' but we currently only do that sporadically as needed. >> I don't think there is any reason for people to start rebuilding their >> packages now either. That will happen over time when 1.7.x is finally >> adopted. > >Btw., when 1.7 is adopted, we will have to make release-2 an independent >directory again, right? Otherwise we will still pull in new 1.5 packages >which will have inferior features. I think that when 1.7 is adopted release-2 -> release release -> release-deprecated and we make setup.exe changes to accommodate that. cgf
