Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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
Message-ID: <421E3DE6.7030300@tlinx.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:49:42 -0800
From: Linda W <cygwin AT tlinx DOT org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: packg mngmnt model & other cygwin package releases...(where did they come from?)
References: <4208270D DOT 4080801 AT tlinx DOT org> <20050208063149 DOT GB3096 AT efn DOT org> <42091B63 DOT 1080908 AT tlinx DOT org> <20050208234325 DOT GA2944 AT efn DOT org> <420AAF5E DOT 1030506 AT tlinx DOT org> <420AB5EC DOT 1070904 AT familiehaase DOT de> <420BB627 DOT 7040905 AT tlinx DOT org> <20050210200410 DOT GA3728 AT efn DOT org> <420BEEB6 DOT 3070303 AT x-ray DOT at> <421CCF9A DOT 5010202 AT tlinx DOT org> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 61 DOT 0502231348470 DOT 25676 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <421CEAE3 DOT 3080401 AT tlinx DOT org> <421CEF9B DOT EDF56FBD AT dessent DOT net>
In-Reply-To: <421CEF9B.EDF56FBD@dessent.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes



Brian Dessent wrote:

>Linda W wrote:
>
>  
>
>>        Ahhh...hmm...I haven't understood (and am not entirely sure, if
>>yet, I do) the package release mechanism.  I would have thought that
>>package maintainers would have been able to check in their packages
>>directly -- perhaps, at least, under the experimental release section.
>>
>>        If I understand you correctly, package maintainers first have
>>to announce something on cygwin-apps, then a few people who have
>>"cygwin-package approval" status eventually find the time to check in the
>>change?
>>    
>>
>
>No, you misunderstand.  
>
    From what you say, I don't think I do misunderstand.  It's
my belief that package maintainers can't check in their
packages _themselves_.  You confirm that:

>Once the package has been approved the first
>time, a maintainer can post a new version at any time in the future just
>by saying "please upload new version x.y-z" and it is usually done by
>someone with a sourceware account within a few hours.  There is no
>approval or review involved.  Maybe you should actually review how this
>all works before making long rants about it?
>  
>
---
    I'm not saying that there is some "approval" -- just
that the module author can't check it in themselves.  I
think this was the case with theh kernel -- it wasn't
that linus went through and approved each line sent in
by the senior kernel maintainers, but I had the impression
that there was a bottle-neck on the check-process to the main
tree.  That's why, I believe, they chose to go to a more public version 
control model - so "owners" of specific parts could
check in changes in their section directly.  I don't see,
from what you said, that the cygwin model is any different
than having only a few people with check-in access to the
tree, rather than each packager maintainer having check-in
ability for their individual packages.

    I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough in my writing.  I don't
know what qualifies as a "rant", as that would seem to
imply some some "axe to grind".  I said (quoting from the
original posting): "I haven't understood (and am not
entirely sure, if yet, I do) the package release mechanism".
I'm sorry that a request for information felt like an axe
being ground, to you.  Not everyone is equally clued in
to everything that has ever been said or written on this topic
and going to archives to read megabytes of past postings to
look for clues seems a very inefficient way to search for
information.

    I wasn't annoyed with any specific individuals, cygwin or
otherwise. If anything, I was annoyed with my not having
heard about the package until it was no longer supported.

    Perhaps a list of "related projects" or links to
3rd party cygwin-app projects on the cygwin website
would benefit the cygwin community.  Something along the
lines of "Other projects using cygwin (note we have no
connection or responsibility for 3rd party projects)"...
In, at least knowing about them, cygwin users could ask
3rd party developers if they might want to submit their
project into some sort of 3rd party "contrib" section,
if not the main grouping of cygwin utils.  But we (those
of us not knowing about such 3rd party projects) can't
lobby for some type of inclusion if we don't even know
about them.

Linda
(not trying to "rant")


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