Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Sun, 27 May 2001 20:47:51 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: About Cygwin 1.0 (check out http://cygwin.com/bugs.html )
Message-ID:	<20010527204751.A27490@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<3B121475 DOT 29836 DOT 137B4E70 AT localhost>; <20010527192917 DOT A27075 AT redhat DOT com> <3B1220DE DOT 5699 DOT 13ABC620 AT localhost>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To:	<3B1220DE.5699.13ABC620@localhost>; from craig@rhe.com.au on Mon, May 28, 2001 at 09:56:46AM +1000

On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 09:56:46AM +1000, Craig McGeachie wrote:
>On 27 May 2001, at 19:29, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> You realize that this is one of many "Cygwin is really really
>> really really really really really really great, but..." messages,
>> right? 
>
>I do.  And if I had enough gumption to get of my fat arse, read the 
>source code, recompile with debugging symbols, and then run the 
>debugger, then I'd have a lot more respect for myself.
>
>> What Ctrl-C handling are you complaining about?  I just searched the
>> archives and I've seen nothing from you about this subject.  Or, at
>> least there was nothing for the last couple of months.
>
>I have no idea what Ctrl-C handling I'm talking about.  As noted 
>previously, I haven't done any research.  When (if) I do, I'll let 
>the world know if I find anything useful.

You obviously have something in mind with regard to Ctrl-C and bash.
You weren't just throwing random words together.  You have a workaround
for something.

FWIW, 90% of the people here use one of two excuses for not
contributing: 1) "I don't know enough" or 2) "I don't have time".

Well, a well-written bug report is actually a contribution, too.  And
you don't have to take *that* much time or even know programming.  If
you can demonstrate a problem and make it easy to reproduce then you
are contributing to the process.

As an example, Dr.  Voker Zell often submits bug reports that are
detailed and easy to understand.  I'm always happy to receive reports
from him.  I don't believe that Dr. Zell is even a programmer.  He
just seems to know how to report bugs.

I appreciate that you think that the only way to help is to actually
read source code and, we could certainly use you if you want to do this
but, but, but no one expects you to debug the signal handling code if
you have a problem.  The first step is to report the bug.

If you want to dive in when someone says "Yeah, that's a bug",  then
more power to you.  I would think that you would want to be assured
of this fact first, though.

Or, hmm, is this just a rehash of the recent CTRL-C with NTEMACS thread
of a week or so ago?

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -