Subject: Re: Is -mno-cygwin support being removed????
From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <[email-masked]>
To: Carl Thompson <[email-masked]>, "Bruce E. Wampler" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Cygwin List <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:42:55 -0400

At 01:02 PM 6/13/2000, Carl Thompson wrote:
>depend on it.  I certainly would not say "well, I don't feel like fixing my
>bug myself because you and your code are not important to me so you should
>fix my code for me and if your fix is up to my standards I might consider
>incoporating it."  I hear a lot of that here.

Funny,  I've been on this list for at least 5 years and I've never seen 
this response in any of the messages I've read.

>Not all Cygwin developers want to develop Cygwin.

A given.  But those who don't should not feel that its their prerogative
to lambaste those who do develop Cygwin because something doesn't work and
isn't fixed in their required time-frame.  As I'm sure you're aware, there
is ALWAYS some problem that someone needs quickly.  The Cygwin team is 
small and can't always respond to all of them.

>Personally, I feel that if you release something to the open source
>community and ask people to use it, then you have a social obligation to the
>community to keep that product working reasonably, and that includes the
>timely fixing of bugs that don't affect you personally.  But that's just me,
>I guess.

I think you and Bruce are reading *WAY* too much into this.  The simple
fact is that the person (Mumit Khan) primarily responsible for maintaining 
gcc for Cygwin is unavailable at this point.  From what I've heard, he won't
be available until mid-month.  Allot of things are anxiously awaiting his
return.  This is one of them.  It seems inappropriate to me to assume that
reports of problems are ignored and clandestine plots are arising just 
because someone hasn't posted a fix for the problem you found within a 
some specific time-frame of its report.  I'm sure everyone would like to 
see fixes flow very quickly.  Its just not always possible.  It doesn't 
mean some evil plot is brewing however or that the idea is to ignore
complaints from users.

I don't think anyone wants people using Cygwin to have problems.  From 
what I've seen, the Cygwin team does a great job delivering new 
functionality and managing bugs.  It seems more productive to me to help
foster an environment that promotes continued improvements and work than
to chastise those who have been working long and hard to give you what
you've been using.

If this thread needs to continue on its current vein, its probably best 
to take it off-line.  I don't mind debating the merits or demerits of the
Cygwin development model and approach but there's probably little benefit
to weighing down the Cygwin list with the discussion.

Larry Hall                              [email-masked]
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX
                                       (508) 560-1285 - cell phone

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to [email-masked]