On Feb 11 12:50, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>
>
> On 2/8/19 6:00 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 8 17:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On Feb 8 17:35, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2/8/19 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> I pushed your forkable branch to mast
On 2/8/19 6:00 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 8 17:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Feb 8 17:35, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/8/19 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
I pushed your forkable branch to master, btw. Would you mind to do the
honors in the ;rease not
On Feb 8 17:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 8 17:35, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> >
> > On 2/8/19 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >
> > > I pushed your forkable branch to master, btw. Would you mind to do the
> > > honors in the ;rease notes at cygwin/release/3.0 and doc/new-featur
On Feb 8 17:35, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>
> On 2/8/19 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> > I pushed your forkable branch to master, btw. Would you mind to do the
> > honors in the ;rease notes at cygwin/release/3.0 and doc/new-features.xml?
>
> Do you mean like this?
>
> /haubi/
> >
On Feb 8 17:17, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>
>
> On 2/8/19 3:48 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 8 15:43, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> >> On 2/8/19 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> On Feb 8 14:06, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 8 13:52, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> >>
On 2/8/19 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> I pushed your forkable branch to master, btw. Would you mind to do the
> honors in the ;rease notes at cygwin/release/3.0 and doc/new-features.xml?
Do you mean like this?
/haubi/
>From 0461e0a552caf0c58ab7999cfd2849c7180f7d30 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2
On 2/8/19 3:48 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 8 15:43, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>> On 2/8/19 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Feb 8 14:06, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 8 13:52, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> On 2/8/19 1:23 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Feb
On Feb 8 15:43, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>
>
> On 2/8/19 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 8 14:06, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On Feb 8 13:52, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> >>> On 2/8/19 1:23 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 8 13:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > O
On 2/8/19 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 8 14:06, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Feb 8 13:52, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>>> On 2/8/19 1:23 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 8 13:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 8 12:51, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>>
>> Fo
On Feb 8 14:06, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 8 13:52, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> > On 2/8/19 1:23 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Feb 8 13:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >> On Feb 8 12:51, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> For now it seems like there's an inconsistency
On Feb 8 13:52, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>
>
> On 2/8/19 1:23 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 8 13:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On Feb 8 12:51, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For now it seems like there's an inconsistency with PIDs:
> >>> A first process PID 100, recei
On 2/8/19 1:23 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 8 13:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Feb 8 12:51, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>>>
>>> For now it seems like there's an inconsistency with PIDs:
>>> A first process PID 100, receives PID 101 from spawn(),
>>> but in the new process getpid()
On Feb 8 13:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 8 12:51, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2/8/19 12:31 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Feb 8 07:46, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 2/7/19 7:27 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >>> On Feb 7 17:14, Michael Haubenwall
On Feb 8 12:51, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>
>
> On 2/8/19 12:31 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 8 07:46, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/7/19 7:27 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> On Feb 7 17:14, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> On 2/5/19 4:18 PM, Corinna Vinschen wro
On 2/8/19 12:31 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 8 07:46, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>>
>> On 2/7/19 7:27 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Feb 7 17:14, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
On 2/5/19 4:18 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
>
> I uploaded a new Cygwin
On Feb 8 07:46, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>
> On 2/7/19 7:27 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 7 17:14, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> >> On 2/5/19 4:18 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> Hi folks,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I uploaded a new Cygwin test release 3.0.0-0.7
> >>>
> >>
> >>> Please te
On 2/7/19 7:27 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 7 17:14, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>> On 2/5/19 4:18 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>>
>>> I uploaded a new Cygwin test release 3.0.0-0.7
>>>
>>
>>> Please test.
>>>
>>
>> There's another regression - regarding spawn, exec an
On Feb 7 17:14, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> On 2/5/19 4:18 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> >
> > I uploaded a new Cygwin test release 3.0.0-0.7
> >
>
> > Please test.
> >
>
> There's another regression - regarding spawn, exec and waitpid,
> loosing the exitstatus somewhere
On 2/5/19 4:18 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
>
> I uploaded a new Cygwin test release 3.0.0-0.7
>
> Please test.
>
There's another regression - regarding spawn, exec and waitpid,
loosing the exitstatus somewhere in between:
$ cat > dospawn.c <
#include
#include
#include
int m
Hi folks,
I uploaded a new Cygwin test release 3.0.0-0.7
This release comes with a couple of new features and some interesting
bug fixes.
It also changes the output of uname(2) for newly built applications.
Applications built so far (that includes uname(1) from coreutils)
will still print the o
20 matches
Mail list logo
