This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: 1.7.1 release date?
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:52:10 -0500
- Subject: Re: 1.7.1 release date?
- References: <1258639463.32014.1346039209@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20091119151736.GI29173@calimero.vinschen.de> <20091119155809.GA8185@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20091119162116.GK29173@calimero.vinschen.de> <20091201170247.GD8059@calimero.vinschen.de> <416096c60912010945r4e3b73afia1ea17bad29e0f73@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 05:45:40PM +0000, Andy Koppe wrote:
>2009/12/1 Corinna Vinschen:
>> Ok, so if we go release, what's missing? ??I could push out the
>> ultimately last Cygwin test DLL today, but that's the smallest
>> part of the release.
>>
>> The following comes to mind in random order:
>>
>> - Bump version number, Create the final release package.
>>
>> - Move 1.7 documentation to it's rightful place.
>> ??Should we keep 1.5 docs available in a 1.5 subdir, for bad times?
>
>Will it still be possible to install 1.5?
>
>> - Drop the #beta-test stuff from index.html.
>>
>> - Cut the unionfs.
>>
>> - What else?
>
>- mv setup-1.7.exe setup.exe
Don't we need to roll a new version of setup? The current version looks in
different locations depending on whether it's being run on Windows NT or not.
Do we still want to do this? I think Corinna wants to keep a legacy 1.5 system
around for Windows 95 users but, if we do that, then I think we need setup.exe
to make it clear that this is a stale version of Cygwin.
I also need to do some upset stuff but it isn't anything too drastic.
cgf