X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Sat, 1 Jul 2006 21:28:57 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Which list should cygwin development be discussed on ?
Message-ID:	<20060702012857.GB14339@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<44A474CE DOT 7090100 AT netbauds DOT net> <20060630011818 DOT GD2154 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <e86j6c$u5o$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<e86j6c$u5o$1@sea.gmane.org>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 03:42:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
>"Christopher Faylor" <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com> wrote in 
>message news:20060630011818 DOT GD2154 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx...
>>On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:48:14AM +0100, Darryl Miles wrote:
>>>Is my more technical discussion better put onto the cygwin-patches list
>>>?
>>
>>No.  The mailing list descriptions really are accurate.  If you don't
>>have a patch, then you shouldn't be sending email to cygwin-patches.
>
>Most cygwin development discussion occurs on the main list or on 
>cygwin-apps.

Discussion of cygwin DLL development is not handled in cygwin-apps.  It
is mainly discussed on irc between Corinna and me.  If someone reports a
problem porting an application in cygwin-apps then it is possible that
Corinna or I might make a change but that is true of any mailing list
which Corinna or I read.

There is a miniscule amount of traffic in the cygwin list about
development and even less traffic in the pretty-much-defunct
cygwin-developers list.

>Basically The general rule for cygwin apps appears to be that the first
>messgage in a thread has to be about creation of new packages, or
>discussions about packaging policy.  (Also requests for uploads go to
>that list).  Then the disussion can drift a little to more general
>cygwin development, but should still be in the context of a specific
>package.

No.  The description in the mailing list is correct.  If there is an
occasional query about cygwin internals it is not a very frequent
occurrence in cygwin-apps.

>Also, discussion of the development of setup.exe usually takes place on 
>cygwin-apps, because that is the designated list for discussing bugs in 
>setup.exe

The description at http://cygwin.com/lists.html really is up-to-date.
There is no need to second guess it.

cgf

--
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 -