This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Question about old win32 api
- From: Michael Enright <mike at kmcardiff dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:11:44 -0700
- Subject: Re: Question about old win32 api
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <A8FCEC4C682E094AAB49CE0CE41E28EA18502B88 at EXCHMB06 dot is dot l-3com dot com> <1442854377 dot 11704 dot 18 dot camel at cygwin dot com> <A8FCEC4C682E094AAB49CE0CE41E28EA18502C2E at EXCHMB06 dot is dot l-3com dot com> <1195136399 dot 20150921222509 at yandex dot ru> <CAOC2fq-WaBg1aug_iG92Z3B7PvYD+EmpsWhCdS7HHDW0JZMijQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <5600691F dot 2090204 at gmail dot com> <CAOC2fq8XD9kx8VbVoWf0pZ3+iX5Xp-Sx18mabnn75WwKkAVwVw at mail dot gmail dot com> <C4D33CAB-A685-45B6-B970-0328B58869E2 at solidrocksystems dot com>
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Vince Rice wrote:
>blindly
The blindness was blindness to the fact that new users were getting a
different version than existing users in some way other than fixing
vulns. Since Cygwin isn't the sort of product that needs to make up
sham reasons to upgrade as Microsoft Word does ("Look! A Ribbon!"),
one assumes that constant incorporation of upstreams, constantly
switching away from unmaintained upstreams to maintained-but-different
upstreams etc is what the Cygwin user base wants. Or at least most of
it.
Do Cygwin'ers ever debate or think about an LTS track for Cygwin? Is
that why there's a "time machine?"
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple