Mail Archives: cygwin/2008/12/11/04:15:56
On Dec 10 21:10, Warren Young wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 05:41:38PM -0700, Warren Young wrote:
>>> Is this going to change for the next major release? There's an awful lot
>>> to absorb in this one.
>> If you mean for 1.9.x then there is no way to predict that.
>
> I was just asking about intentions. Do the core developers *want* to pile
> up new features and breakages over a period of many years and release them
> in a huge batch, or do you prefer to release smaller batches more often?
The really big move to 1.7 is done. In the next time the changes will
be more iterative again, if that's what you're asking.
>> It's possible that the next major release will introduce cygwin2.dll.
>> That
>> would be a long time coming.
>
> Do you have a sense for what would make the next major release cygwin2.dll
> and not cygwin1.dll? Obviously an API or ABI breakage would require a new
> DLL name, but do you have something on the wish list that would require
> that, which was put off this time around?
Windows will run under Cygwin 2.0 instead of vice versa.
> What I was really asking is about execution time. Does it run faster with
> all those if (win9x()) { ... } else { ... } logic forks removed? Or
> conversely, perhaps there's new completeness or correctness code that slows
> some things down?
Certain File I/O should be faster (directory listings for instance), but
other than that, we made no performance tests. Some changes were meant
to make Cygwin perform better, some other to make Cygwin behave more
correct. Sometimes these development goals collide.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -