Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Originating-IP: [198.142.166.171]
From: "Gareth Pearce" <tilps AT hotmail DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <000d01c1f54c$431517e0$0100a8c0 AT advent02> <20020506235706 DOT GA8253 AT redhat DOT com> <OE12aezUF0d0HaF3zku00005797 AT hotmail DOT com> <20020507144357 DOT GB8362 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: setlinebuf
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 07:47:28 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: <OE14dx5v3EjyNQD9Y7j00005e39@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 May 2002 21:54:45.0622 (UTC) FILETIME=[CCEFA960:01C1F611]


----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: setlinebuf


> On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 02:45:42PM +1000, Gareth Pearce wrote:
> >I even submited a patch to newlib to get it put in... although it didnt
even
> >get a 'we need a copyright assignment' or 'looks like you stole that from
> >something thats gpl'd ... try again' (which it wasnt I think - it was a
cut
> >paste edit job from newlib itself pretty much)
> >it would be incredibly simple to add.  but given the no comment - I just
> >couldnt be bothered trying again ... i just replace the call with the
> >equivelent code when i find it in stuff i want to port.
>
> New to free software?
yeap! - or I was.

> Sometimes (many times) you have to be persistent
> if you want to get your patch in.  I'm sure that the newlib developers
> (which does not include me or Corinna) would respond to a polite ping.
>
> Just as a reminder, we're all volunteers here.  No one gets performance
> reviews based on responding to net submissions.  It's not a corporate
> goal for anyone to scan mailing lists helping people.  People do it
> because they want to help and so fit their efforts into their busy
> schedules.  So it doesn't make any sense to be frustrated by
> non-response to a patch, especially after one try.
no frustration - just lack of 'could be botheredness'. - I had the urge, i
posted, the urge had gone by the time i realised there had been no reply for
a week or 2.
>
> If, however, one shot at getting a patch in is the limit of what you are
> willing to do, then that's fine.  After all, you're a volunteer, too.
yeap
Added to the could not be bothered was I came to realise that although
incredibly simple, it was doubtful that a feature addition would fall under
'no need for copyright assignment' - which i certainly couldnt be bothered
doing, I find it stupid that i have to pay postage to get a copyright
assignment sent in to contribute to free software - although if i felt i was
going to make a more then semi-insignificant contribution - I would.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/