Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000613130354.00b879a8@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:42:55 -0400 To: Carl Thompson , "Bruce E. Wampler" From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Subject: Re: Is -mno-cygwin support being removed???? Cc: Cygwin List In-Reply-To: <39466928.C8C011D3@carlthompson.net> References: <3946544E DOT 6AC55632 AT objectcentral DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 lhall AT rfk DOT com 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 cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com