Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/10/23/09:06:31
This thread, though getting on my nerves, actually has a relatively interesting
question in it. I think the answer is kinda obvious, though..
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 11:36:07AM -0400, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
> P.S. Speaking of special treatment, how come Cygwin is the only free
> software project whose maintainers say "PTC" instead of "PGA"? How
> naive all those other maintainers must be!
if the other projects say they will greatfully accept patches, they will
also say that they will consider those patches beforrree greatfully
accepting them - not doing so would either be lying or being incredably
silly in the politics towards patches.
The Cygwin maintainers are honest, hard-working people that have made some
great ideas happen. Part of their honesty compells them to tell you that
though patches will be thoughtfully considered, not all of them will be
accepted - but those that are are done so greatfully. For a patch to be
considered, all the technical and legal problems that the patch may impose
on the Cygwin developers must be dealt with. Not doing so would eventually
kill the project.
Personally, I think it is a Good Thing to be honesty and to have clear
rules/procedures about how to handle development and accepting patches.
I'm not saying other maintainers are naive, dishonest or stupid or anything,
I'm just saying they also TC the Ps before GAing them :)
rlc
--
Everything takes longer, costs more, and is less useful.
-- Erwin Tomash
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -