Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 09:03:30PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote: >> Heh, as I said in response to Junio, I have a patch that removes all >> of the config in the conditional, so that we would no longer support >> any 'pre-v2.x' versions of cygwin[*]. I think that would be an entirely >> reasonable thing to do, particularly as cygwin thinks of itself as >> a 'rolling release' type distribution. ;) >> >> However, I don't think it is my place to make that kind of decision >> and I was leaving that patch until last. Hopefully, Adam will make >> that call. :) > > Makes sense, it's a bigger discussion indeed. I do think it would be > reasonable to drop pre-2.0 Cygwin, and we have recently become a bit > more aggressive in dropping support for ancient OS versions. But I'm > totally fine with not doing it now. Surely, and thanks. If Adam declares that pre-2.0 is no longer relevant to us, I am fine dropping support for it. The fewer knobs to tweak we have, the better. I do not know what the best plan is for changes to update things that supposedly help supporting pre-2.0 boxes, without us being able to test, though. I think I am OK with "this patchset I try to cover everybody, but this and that systems are untested and untestable by me" and I am also OK with "this patchset does not address this and that systems at all, as there is no way to test them by me". Thanks.
