On Mon, 7 Jul 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1935 > > > > I'm sorry if I'm sounding frustrated. I am just trying to debate to find > > > the best implementation. I think that having two versions of processing > > > the file actions is asking for inconsistencies and bugs. As you point > > > out, non-Cygwin processes are second-class citizens to Cygwin but are more > > > important to MSYS2 and Git for Windows, so I can see bugs in the > > > non-Cygwin case going undiscovered until after a Cygwin release, when > > > MSYS2 and Git for Windows try to integrate it > > Maybe I'm just badly uninformed, but wouldn't it make sense to push out > test builds of MSYS2 as well to avoid just that?
Yeah, before 3.6.0 was released I rebased msys2-runtime on top of it to run the tests that MSYS2 and Git for Windows have. > All good points. We should actually see what the Austin Group comes up > with and then we can reconsider. In the meantime we stick to your current > implementation. Would you mind to push it on top of main into a new > topic branch, i.e., something like > > git checkout -b topic/posix_spawn main > > and push it? If you're not aware of this, the "topic/" prefix is > required to allow force pushing to the branch. It's some kind of > safety net from the gerrit macros activated for a couple of projects > on sware. Done. https://www.cygwin.com/cgit/newlib-cygwin/log/?h=topic%2Fposix_spawn This also includes the patch I recently sent, because I had done half of that while adding pgroup support.
