Re: 1.7.1 release date?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 06:26:46PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Dec  4 12:13, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 05:28:08PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >We discussed this already multiple times.  The idea was not to rename
>> >the new release directory.  It will be still called release-2 and only
>> >the unionfs is supposed to go away.  Otherwise you would have to rebuild
>> >the old setup version as well.  It's a lot of hassle for no gain.
>> 
>> Well, apparently we didn't discuss it in this thread.  I think it is a
>> very bad idea to have a "release" directory which contains old stuff and
>> I think it is moderately bad idea to have a "release-2" directory
>> permanently associated with Cygwin 1.7.
>> 
>> If it is just rebuilding setup.exe that is the problem then I can do
>> that.  I have the changes nearly ready to go, in fact.
>
>By renaming the directories you enforce an unnecessary update of 10 Gigs
>per mirror.  Unnecessary, especially concidering the fact that this
>isn't user-visible anyway.  After all it's just a name of a directory,
>nothing else.  As long as we know what is what, it doesn't matter at all.

I just searched for the initial discussion about this topic where you
made the "it's too much bandwidth" argument.  It's puzzling because,
after some discussion, you said:

On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 02:15:59PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>Ok, let's decide about renaming directories at some later point.

Then Chuck Wilson said:

On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:04:30AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>That is, no directory renaming at all (which would make the mirrors
>happy) -- we "activate" by releasing a new setup?

To which you replied:

On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:02:15PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>Yes! :)

So, it seems like somewhere along the line a decision was made without
consensus.

Also, at some later point I made this observation:

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 03:47:05PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>I am not sure how much to worry about the effect on the mirrors.  It
>seems like there would be an additional flurry of activity that would
>eventually just die down.  I hate to make supportability decisions based
>on external constraints.

So, at least we're both being consistent.

Since we added the release-2 directory with no apparent problems to the
mirrors, I don't see why some more shuffling would cause any problems.
The added bandwidth we're talking about is basically just a couple of
full cygwin installs.  And, if the mirror understands hardlinks it is
possible to just temporarily create a release-legacy directory which
just hard links files back to the release directory.  Then the only
data which would be transferred is presumably the inode information.

I really don't like having things named incorrectly and, like I said,
having a directory named "release" which is really an old release and a
directory named "release-2" which is for Cygwin "1.7" is a recipe for
future confusion for me, at the very least, and, I think, for others
as well.

cgf