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: <394696B2.BFDD144F@carlthompson.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:16:50 -0700 From: Carl Thompson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Cc: Cygwin List Subject: Re: Is -mno-cygwin support being removed???? References: <3946544E DOT 6AC55632 AT objectcentral DOT com> <4 DOT 3 DOT 2 DOT 7 DOT 2 DOT 20000613130354 DOT 00b879a8 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" wrote: > > 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. A previous post in this thread asserted that because lots of people weren't complaining about this it wasn't important. Your previous post asserted that if I didn't like it "you can fix it yourself." It's true that in this particular thread, no one said both at once but I have certainly seen that before on this list, certainly within the last 24 hours! > >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. The Cygwin developers won't know what problems are important to people unless we complain about it. This problem is very important to me so I will complain loudly. That's the way it works. > >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 must be that Mumit Khan has been away for a very long time because this has been broken for months. > 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 agree with you. I don't think there is any plot. I do believe that the Cygwin team isn't being particularly responsive to the needs of some of their users by allowing the "-mno-cygwin" feature to be broken for this long. I don't think a months long wait for a fix for something that used to work is reasonable, though. > 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. Agreed. The Cygwin team has done a fantastic job making Windows easier to work with for POSIX programmers. I am just saying that I don't like it that a feature that I have relied on has remained broken for so long. I don't agree that just because Cygwin is a great free product and the developers are selflessly helping the developer community that I shouldn't voice my complaints nor criticize things that I think are bad. > 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. I don't think it's fair for you to voice your opinion on-line, but tell others that they shouldn't respond to it on-line. I think our basic difference is that you have a "be happy with the cards your dealt" mentality, but I have a "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" mentality. Both points of view are valid, but don't insist that I be like you. > Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com Carl Thompson -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com