X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20060815151104.0b40e260@pop.nycap.rr.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:56:13 -0400
To: Dave Korn <dave DOT korn AT artimi DOT com>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: "William A. Hoffman" <billlist AT nycap DOT rr DOT com>
Subject: RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
In-Reply-To: <012701c6c099$33a3a610$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
References: <44E1FF26 DOT 6040707 AT netacquire DOT com>  <012701c6c099$33a3a610$a501a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
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

At 02:32 PM 8/15/2006, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 15 August 2006 18:07, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
>
>> is the exact opposite of
>> what free software is supposed to be about.  A healthy free software project
>> depends on and welcomes input from the community. The attitude exhibited by
>> some on this mailing list, of trying to muzzle opinions they disagree with,
>> does not help.
>
>  It's not about anyone denigrating anyone else's contribution, or anyone
>trying to muzzle anyone else's opinion.  That's paranoid hyperbole and
>exaggeration.
>
>  It's just that if someone doesn't want to do it, and you aren't persuading
>them, to carry on repeating the same line again and again and again and again
>is insulting, for three reasons: 1) saying the same thing over and over again
>when someone has already explained why they're not going to do what you want
>constitutes nagging, 2) saying the same thing over and over again when someone
>has explained why they're not going to do what you want to do implies that you
>haven't had the courtesy to listen to a word they've said, and 3) saying the
>same thing over and over again when someone has already explained why they're
>not going to do what you want to do is more-or-less spamming.  It's pointless,
>annoying, offensive, whiney and arrogant.  It just starts to sound like "Me me
>me me me I want I want I want" and people quickly start to react to you as if
>you actually /were/ a four-year old.

I am not sure that is the case here.   A change was made because the developer no
longer wanted to support the patch.   I can relate to that.  If something is a pain,
and you don't want to do it fine.   However, if a new developer came along and volunteered
to maintain the patch, or even create a separate version of make that had the patch,
I am guessing that it would be rejected by cygwin.   So, in this case, for those that 
want the old way of things to work, there is no amount of "work" they can do to make that 
happen.  The only thing they can do is lobby the gnu make folks and get some change
into gnu make.   So it a no win situation for those that want the old way
to work.  If you complain on the list, you are whiney,  if you offer to do the maintain
the patch yourself, then your offer will be rejected. 

-Bill




--
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/