Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 23:16:58 -0400
To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: A riskier alternative to "latest"?
Message-ID: <20000512231658.B2496@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cgf AT cygnus DOT com, cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
References: <20000512171353 DOT A2947 AT cygnus DOT com> <200005122126 DOT RAA19789 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.12i
In-Reply-To: <200005122126.RAA19789@envy.delorie.com>; from dj@delorie.com on Fri, May 12, 2000 at 05:26:02PM -0400

On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 05:26:02PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> This is similar to a lot of other projects so I don't think this is a
>> very radical concept.  The only thing I don't know about is what to name
>> the directory, actually.  Is "development" clear?  Some projects call it
>> "dontuse" or "new", too.
>
>DJGPP uses "alpha" and "beta" subdirectories for stuff like that; we
>don't get too many complaints (I don't remember *any*), but the
>install tools don't scan those directories anyway.  They key is to not
>install the test versions *by default*.
>
>If setup doesn't go more than one directory deep, we could add
>alpha/beta directories within each package.  Or, we could add
>alpha/beta siblings to latest; setup should ignore those also.

>I think the concept of alpha/beta is pretty well understood.  I don't
>see why we'd need to invent some other term.  Alpha is for things that
>probably won't work, beta is for things that probably will work,
>latest is for things that do work.

The reason I didn't suggest "alpha" and "beta" is that the tools in
latest are already supposed to be "beta" and I thought that this might
confuse things since we would have a beta version of our beta version.

>Another option is to allow tagging individual tarballs with "risk
>factors".  To do this we'd need either a rock-solid versioning/naming
>scheme, or start using some master config file for setup to read, so
>that setup could prompt for "do you want to try experimental
>versions?"  and do the right thing.  Of course, we'd need a way to
>revert to stable versions if they break.

It would be nice to have setup ask if the user wanted to try experimental
versions.  I don't envision that things like "ash" will be experimental
for long, though.

Maybe the best plan is to just release ash and a vfork version of cygwin
and drop back if this causes problems.

cgf