Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:45:53 -0500
To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: next net release preview
Message-ID: <20000223204553.F31789@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
References: <Pine DOT NEB DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 10002231253470 DOT 13918-100000 AT cesium DOT clock DOT org> <200002232151 DOT QAA14479 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20000223191420 DOT A20059 AT shell4 DOT ba DOT best DOT com> <200002240035 DOT TAA11422 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20000223200843 DOT A643 AT shell4 DOT ba DOT best DOT com> <200002240110 DOT UAA11995 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20000223204140 DOT A11405 AT shell4 DOT ba DOT best DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.4i
In-Reply-To: <20000223204140.A11405@shell4.ba.best.com>; from glenn@gs.fay.nc.us on Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:41:41PM -0500

On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:41:41PM -0500, Glenn Spell wrote:
>On 23 Feb 2000 around 8:10PM (-0500) DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> I do, however, expect that people working on a port discuss what
>> they're doing on the developers list and manage to give everyone
>> a warm and fuzzy feeling that the resulting port will be OK,
>> including doing at least some testing, maybe a few pre-releases,
>> that kind of stuff.
>
>That makes sense, except...
>
>I've had the impression for some time as a result of something I
>read (don't remember the particulars) that the developers list was
>only for discussing cygwin core issues and the discussion of porting
>issues was off topic for the developers list.
>
>Perhaps we'll need a "ports" list. <g>

You're right.  cygwin-developers has been only for the discussion of
cygwin DLL internals.  A cygwin-ports mailing list might make sense.

The first step, however, is to release what we've got and then react
as quickly as possible to new ideas rather than waiting forever as
we have in the past.  We're trying to set up a new framework that will
allow us to respond quickly when people detect problems.

cgf