Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/02/24/15:50:24
Brian Dessent wrote:
>Linda W wrote:
>
>
>
>> Ahhh...hmm...I haven't understood (and am not entirely sure, if
>>yet, I do) the package release mechanism. I would have thought that
>>package maintainers would have been able to check in their packages
>>directly -- perhaps, at least, under the experimental release section.
>>
>> If I understand you correctly, package maintainers first have
>>to announce something on cygwin-apps, then a few people who have
>>"cygwin-package approval" status eventually find the time to check in the
>>change?
>>
>>
>
>No, you misunderstand.
>
From what you say, I don't think I do misunderstand. It's
my belief that package maintainers can't check in their
packages _themselves_. You confirm that:
>Once the package has been approved the first
>time, a maintainer can post a new version at any time in the future just
>by saying "please upload new version x.y-z" and it is usually done by
>someone with a sourceware account within a few hours. There is no
>approval or review involved. Maybe you should actually review how this
>all works before making long rants about it?
>
>
---
I'm not saying that there is some "approval" -- just
that the module author can't check it in themselves. I
think this was the case with theh kernel -- it wasn't
that linus went through and approved each line sent in
by the senior kernel maintainers, but I had the impression
that there was a bottle-neck on the check-process to the main
tree. That's why, I believe, they chose to go to a more public version
control model - so "owners" of specific parts could
check in changes in their section directly. I don't see,
from what you said, that the cygwin model is any different
than having only a few people with check-in access to the
tree, rather than each packager maintainer having check-in
ability for their individual packages.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough in my writing. I don't
know what qualifies as a "rant", as that would seem to
imply some some "axe to grind". I said (quoting from the
original posting): "I haven't understood (and am not
entirely sure, if yet, I do) the package release mechanism".
I'm sorry that a request for information felt like an axe
being ground, to you. Not everyone is equally clued in
to everything that has ever been said or written on this topic
and going to archives to read megabytes of past postings to
look for clues seems a very inefficient way to search for
information.
I wasn't annoyed with any specific individuals, cygwin or
otherwise. If anything, I was annoyed with my not having
heard about the package until it was no longer supported.
Perhaps a list of "related projects" or links to
3rd party cygwin-app projects on the cygwin website
would benefit the cygwin community. Something along the
lines of "Other projects using cygwin (note we have no
connection or responsibility for 3rd party projects)"...
In, at least knowing about them, cygwin users could ask
3rd party developers if they might want to submit their
project into some sort of 3rd party "contrib" section,
if not the main grouping of cygwin utils. But we (those
of us not knowing about such 3rd party projects) can't
lobby for some type of inclusion if we don't even know
about them.
Linda
(not trying to "rant")
--
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 -