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
Message-ID:	<032f01c11bb3$acbc6bd0$0cb4a8c0@brisbane.paradigmgeo.com>
From:	"Mike Thomas" <miketh AT brisbane DOT paradigmgeo DOT com>
To:	<cgf AT redhat DOT com>
Cc:	"Corinna Vinschen" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<00a201c11a39$a1b55c40$0cb4a8c0 AT brisbane DOT paradigmgeo DOT com> <20010801092435 DOT B9574 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <019c01c11ae6$79ff9dc0$0cb4a8c0 AT brisbane DOT paradigmgeo DOT com> <20010802135639 DOT D28906 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject:	Re: BUG - 1.3.n accept fails if NULL sockaddr * argument and other related stuff.
Date:	Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:31:40 +1000
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300

Thanks Chris.

Note that this is not a public email.

I am sorry that my first Cygwin bug report has apparently caused such a
negative vibe in your office.

Please consider that a lot of people, including myself, appreciate the work
you people do, but we can't all direct our full attention to Cygwin, nor be
experts in the internal workings of that library.

In other words, "Standard answer #13", is standard for legitimate reasons
and does not deserve a cynical response.

My guess as a software professional is that a drastic change to the function
concerned (accept()) could break a lot of code.  (I may be wrong about that,
but better to be safe than sorry where other people's efforts are at stake.)
For that reason I offered my comments up for reasonable consideration by
people that I obviously considered to be more knowledgeable than myself in
that area.

On a final note, let us not forget that Redhat presumably makes a profit
from its association with Cygwin, and therefore derives profit from people
such as myself taking the time to post informative bug reports.  That is my
payback to Cygwin for the benefits I derive from it's use and I suspect more
than most people actually give.

I look forward to a more friendly response to any further bug reports I may
submit in the future.

Cheers

Mike Thomas.


----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 3:56 AM
Subject: Re: BUG - 1.3.n accept fails if NULL sockaddr * argument and other
related stuff.


> On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 10:02:48AM +1000, Mike Thomas wrote:
> >Hi Corinna.
> >
> >Thanks for the reply.
> >
> >> So, would you like to send us a patch?
> >
> >I believe that a patch would be best supplied by someone who knows
somthing
> >about sockets and the interactions of Cygwin and the Win32 libraries.
> >Before you tell me to find out the information I need, I have to say that
I
> >am involved with other open source projects and barely have time for
those,
> >without rebuilding cygwin as well.
>
> i.e., "standard answer #13" when someone is asked for a patch.
>
> cgf
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
>


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -