[HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:07:26PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Apr  8 14:41, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 07:40:13PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >On Apr  8 13:26, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >> cygwin-xp?  cygwin-2008?
>> >
>> >cysta? :)
>> >
>> >cygwin-2008 isn't bad, though.
>> >
>> >> cygwin-nextgen?
>> >
>> >Or just cygwin-new, maybe.  I'd take any of them, -new or -2008.
>> 
>> In my experience, adding a "new" to any directory or file is a
>> guaranteed way of ensuring that the name will not always be accurate.
>
>Why, we could always name the next versions "cygwin-newer",
>"cygwin-evenmorenew", "cygwin-newerthannew" and
>"cygwin-reallyreallynew-imeanit".
>
>> How about cygwinng?
>
>With a dash?  cygwin-ng?  Like syslog-ng.  I was going to suggest this
>too, but I didn't want to copy the naming too bluntly.

We actually use "ng" internally to Netapp.  I actually wanted to call my
project either "ds9" or "voyager" but I got vetoed.

>I guess we should use "cygwin-notasnewbutstillnewenough".  I'm still
>more leaning towards cygwin-2008.  You shouldn't have suggested the
>name.  It's all your fault.

I hate the name!  Hate it!

But I don't really care.  cygwin-2008 is fine with me.  However, I
predict that cgf-2012 will probably be grumbling about that name
eventually.

cgf