On May 25 10:22, Erik Soderquist wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > On 25 May 2016 at 06:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > Uh oh, bad timing... > > > > > > The next release 2.5.2 introduces the first non-XP compatible code. > > > It's in a seldom used corner of the code and it doesn't require > > > functions unavailable on XP, so it will very likely not break 99% of the > > > existing applications yet. > > > > > > But the next release after will very likely break XP support entirely. > > > > Would this be something to move to 3.x because there seems to be a lot > > of people who come onto the list a lot. That way they know they can > > use 2.5.1 and that is the last 'stable' release they need to 'fork' > > from as say Cygnus-XP1 to keep going? > > I like this idea. I too have some isolated XP VM stations (mine > deliberately have zero network connection; "defender updates" do NOT > close security holes) that I currently plan to continue using until > I've learned enough programming myself to rewrite the windows only > utilities I have running in these stations. A version change from > from 2.x to 3.x at the official end of XP support would make it a very > clean marker.
2.6, probably. This is much more than you got back in the days when we dropped support for 9x, NT4, W2K ;) Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature