Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2002/01/26/22:05:22

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 22:04:03 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Daemon reviewer
Message-ID: <>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <01cd01c1a6dd$4619e550$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <01cd01c1a6dd$4619e550$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
User-Agent: Mutt/

On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 01:49:43PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>Chris, please make (yet another :}) clear statement about what output
>you want from a reviewer, what credentials you need them to have (ie
>will any of Gary/Egor/Corinna do?) and please think about what the way
>forward will when you recieve that input.

Here's the statement:  I don't wanna do it.

I'd like this mailing list to work.  I'd like people to take a look at
Robert's code, offer suggestions, or even just try it out.

This is a major change in functionality for cygwin.  Of course, I'll
get involved eventually.  I'll have to.

Prior to that, however, I'd like other people to poke around under
the hood and verify that everything looks ok.

>The diff for the daemon is 130K. Thats not a lot of code (under 4400
>lines, including the diff headers and the not-to-be-included shared
>memory and IPC code).

I've actually looked at the diffs a little.  I had a couple of questions
about what looked like gratuitous changes but, otherwise, on a really
cursory once over, everything looked fine.

Does that inspire anyone to take a closer look?

>I can't afford the time investment maintaining a dead branch, and unless
>one of the two above things happen,  I've got to consider it dead, with
>no community support.
>This isn't an ultimatum or anything silly like that, just a statement of
>fact. The branch can stay there as long as needed, but I'll not be
>changing it, unless I need a specific feature from HEAD.


This looks remarkably like one of my "It's not going to happen
unless..." statements to the cygwin mailing list.  Hmm.  I think
the standard response is to become offended.


How dare you not want to continue to merge code for no apparent gain to
yourself?  It seems to me that if cygwin is going to grow and flourish
it will need people with better attitudes! I think the "developers" need
to adopt a better attitude or cygwin is doomed.

Doomed, I tell you!


- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019