William A. Hoffman wrote: > So, from the feedback I am getting, it really boils down to a "not > enough people to maintain the feature" issue. I don't think that > people don't think that a stable release of cygwin would be a bad > thing, it is just that there > is no one to maintain it. > > The least intrusive approach I can think of is the following: > > Once a quarter, there is a cygwin release. All packages in curr, get > automatically moved to cygwin-cur once a quarter. > > cygwin-curr, prev, curr, exp > > If bugs are reported for packages in cygwin-curr, they can be fixed, > but no new versions are allowed. I would expect that this would > provide a more stable cygwin with not much manual effort. > > I guess the problem is to convince folks, that this is a useful thing > to do. As a cygwin user, I think it would provide a more stable > platform.
I think it would unnecessarily delay people from updating to latest package versions. The point is *[curr] is meant to be stable*. Occasionally a problem may slip through. Fine. That's what the option of reverting a package to [prev] is for. When problems arise, they are fixed quickly, or the package is pulled, and the [prev] reinstated to [curr]. If this is not good enough for you, then *just burn a CD*. There is no need to force this artificial 'release' policy on the Cygwin project. Max. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/