On Apr 9 11:04, Charles Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 10:31:39 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:09:46AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: > >>Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >>>My favorite would be release-2. It has nothing to do with the DLL > >> > >>Sounds fine to me as well. > > > >It's ok. > > Works for me. > > One question: the old plan was, as outlined by Brian, that we would > eventually have: > > release_legacy <<-- renamed from existing 'release' directory > release <<-- new 1.7 stuff, once it is "gold". > (and somewhere we would have a temp release-1.7/-2008/whatever thing, > which would get renamed to 'release') > > Is the new plan: > > release <<-- stays exactly as is, forever and ever. (OK, maybe some > pkg updates...) > release-2 <<-- "temp" with custom setup.exe during development, but > eventually becomes "actual" when > (a) we decide that 1.7 and associated pkgs are ready to go > (b) and we release a "new" setup.exe with the special "are you > Win9x"-->release (NOT release_legacy), else -->release-2 > > That is, no directory renaming at all (which would make the mirrors > happy) -- we "activate" by releasing a new setup?
Yes! :) Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
