DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=eZTRgOs0KaufLcgR4lRiladlLsPMJf+SHQOaiVDz6J8KEP016aSXY
	yXmvPN8+H2iEWlVInSOZfVtAhdpPmHMfwNAvTKPGL/+tiPgx6QprjgwwY9ddxAaW
	d80btz45/PqUOsV8ziT5V4r2wCEUGnfK9OVEqa9M0D6/esSvkHvZwE=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 12:49:02 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Cygwin kill utility //Was: cgwin_internal(): difference b/w CW_CYGWIN_PID_TO_WINPID and CW_GETPINFO_FULL for taking only dwProcessId ?
Message-ID: <20140408164902.GD5812@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C8AED9C@MLBXv04.nih.gov> <20140408031817.GA1796@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C8B4372@MLBXv04.nih.gov> <20140408090129.GC28755@calimero.vinschen.de> <6CF2FC1279D0844C9357664DC5A08BA2464FF5@MLBXV06.nih.gov> <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C8B85C2@MLBXv04.nih.gov> <20140408152118.GB4595@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <5344236E.8020503@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5344236E.8020503@aol.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 12:27:26PM -0400, Tim Prince wrote:
>
>On 4/8/2014 11:21 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Non-sarcastic translation: Don't expect us to know about your s**t. We 
>> have standard expectations for this free software project and the 
>> expectations are do not include keeping a mental map of the rules of 
>> every email domain that sends messages here so that we can avoid 
>> asking for a patch. I'm with Corinna in wondering how you can use 
>> GPLed software at all if you are so limited.
>Now that I'm retired, if I thought there were any point in figuring out 
>why gcc test suite fails to kill the hung tests, I'd be happy to send 
>any patch.  This comment appears to imply there is no point.

Huh?  We consistently ask for patches.  The whole POINT of this thread
was that we want patches.

>Meanwhile, I go to Windows task manager and kill them manually, so they
>report XPASS.  My former employer permitted only employees with a job
>description including support of open source software to submit
>patches, even though we all had to take the annual quiz about GPL etc.
>That employer has products which run under cygwin bash (not linked
>against cygwin1.dll), some so intended, more of them not.

Hopefully everyone is aware of the fact that employers have restrictions
on what kind of code their employees can publish.

I'll make my point again so that someone else can creatively
misinterpret it: If you have tracked down a problem and think you see a
fix then we appreciate patches.  If you can't send a patch because it
isn't allowed then MAKE THAT POINT CLEAR UP FRONT.  Otherwise, you're
courting a needless back and forth interaction.

FYI, if you can't send a patch, don't expect that you have people on
call standing by who will be happy to make code changes for you.  While
I do appreciate that some organizations have stringent rules that
doesn't mean that I (and I assume Corinna) want to reprioritize our
lives to deal with creatively editing code to deal with an issue that
you found.  We may get to it eventually but the lack of patch puts
the change down on the priority queue.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple