1.7.1 release date?

[Thomas Wolff]

Corinna Vinschen schrieb:
> On Nov 19 09:04, Charles Wilson wrote:
>   
>> Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
>>     
>>> Corinna wrote:
>>>       
>>>> So, what do you all think about the shape 1.7 is in?
>>>>
>>>> It surely has still bugs, but is it stable enough that we can
>>>> contemplate a release, finally?
>>>>         
As a general concern, considering this is a major step and there was a 
showstopper with X Windows very recently, I would let it settle for a 
few weeks (say 2 or 3) before *I* would dare this step now.

>>> I think we can.  I've been using it in a production environment for
>>> quite a while with no issues.
>>>       
The X issue was one. Another might be installation. I reported trouble 
on one machine recently where I could not install cygwin to a network 
drive. Assume just 1% of cygwin users have this trouble and image the 
number of complaints...
I have the idea it could hopefully help to try again with today's update 
of setup.exe:
> - Create directories with access rights which are more friendly to
>   native Windows processes.
but unfortunately I have only access to that machine once a week, so 
I'll try next Monday.

>> I agree -- at least from my personal experience. I think the major
>> concern is, do you guys (the folks most versed in the charset/lang
>> issues) think that the charset/lang stuff is good enough (even if not
>> perfect) for a release?
I think this stuff is working quite well now, with one small but 
significant issue: I had suggested to add set LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 to 
cygwin.bat and I'd like to strongly repeat this suggestion as it might 
avoid much trouble.

>> 2) The terminal handling stuff Andy Koppe mentioned: making "console"
>>     
> Do you mean Thomas Wolf by any chance?  He has that console patch
> in the loop which adds mouse event reporting.  The patch doesn't
> seem to interfere with current console handling, except for the
> change from ESC[9m to ESC[2m for dim.  The latter doesn't show up
> in termcap and terminfo so it shouldn't matter.
>
> Changing the Shift-F key sequences?  Is it really worth it, given
> that they follow at least *some* standard?  I don't think so.
>
> Everything else in this thread is either enhancement or bug fix,
> but not a visible, backward-incompatible change in behaviour.
>   
This is all not crucial for the 1.7 step although I would have liked to 
get it done earlier, plus my additional one-line patch for 
Alt-AltGr-prefixing, plus VT100 graphics (as suggested by Andy) which I 
am working on...

>> I'm thinking of the recent discussion concerning ^H vs.
>> ^?.  I've still got a patch in my queue for terminfo, so I'd like to
>> roll that out before/simultaneously with cygwin-1.7.1; I'm pretty sure
>> there's a pending update for termcap, as well.
>>     
> Right, that would make sense.
>   
Indeed, the cygwin entry refers to linux here which has the wrong value 
for kbs/kb. This should be fixed in the cygwin entry.

Thomas