This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.3.0-0.4
- From: Achim Gratz <Stromeko at Nexgo dot DE>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:53:44 +0100
- Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.3.0-0.4
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <announce dot 20151022162227 dot GC5319 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <loom dot 20151023T153449-500 at post dot gmane dot org> <20151026100756 dot GC31990 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <562E4ED0 dot 7020907 at Nexgo dot DE> <20151027092722 dot GN5319 at calimero dot vinschen dot de>
Am 27.10.2015 um 10:27 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
That test is almost as bad as it can ever get. Given that enumerating all
AD accouts with mkpasswd takes about 2 hours and I'm doing something very
similar here, I'm not even surprised. I was more surprised to see the
server go so fast, but my guess is that it can use jumbo frames to talk to
Ok, so you don't seem to think this is a major drawback.
I didn't say I would not like to see it run faster. But considering the
alternatives, working correctly all the times at the current speed seems
to cover my more typical uses a lot better.
No worries. I'm mulling over the idea to release 2.3.0 this week
without the new ACL handling code to get the latest fixes out of the
door first and push this stuff into a 2.4.0 release in November.
As long as you keep reminding us which snapshot has the new ACL handling
code, that is OK with me. I will want to push out the snapshot in a
week or two and remove some of my workarounds for ACL corrections and/or
noacl mounted directories in order to see if these things are working
now for real.
Given the above result, I'm wondering if we can afford using AuthZ at
all. OTOH I don't see any other way to get the correct POSIX permissions
>from a non-Cygwin ACL :(
If you really want fast but incorrect there's always the "noacl" mount
Right. OTOH, maybe we could enhance the "acl" mount option?
"acl" -> "quickacl" -> "noacl"?
Let's worry about that middle ground scenario when the ACL code has
proven itself. The danger here is that the edge cases that will make
problems are not easy to spot before you run into them
(on the road :-)
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple