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

Christopher Faylor cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com
Tue Apr 15 17:59:00 GMT 2008

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 05:44:00PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Apr 15 10:17, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>Having said that, should we really rename the registry keys, what do we
>>>do with the "Program Options" and the two "heap_foo" values?
>>I'd like to keep the "Program Options" and nuke the "heap_foo" options.
>Maybe you can get rid of heap_chunk_in_mb but it's still not clear that
>we can get rid of heap_slop_in_mb.  The strange allocation in 2003 and
>later is a problem and just because we had nobody complaining for a
>while doesn't mean the current slop value is always sufficient.  I'm
>for keeping this option.
>>I also object to using "Red Hat" as the "owner" [...]
>Red Hat *is* the owner of the code, regardless of the registry key you
>want to use.  I know that you have mixed feelings about Red Hat,
>however, assuming the code is owned by the FSF, would you object
>against a parent key name of FSF as well?

Ok, since my motives for having an opinion are in question, I will
withdraw from the discussion, rather than spending time on
pointless self-justification.


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list