Hi Ced, On Tue, 29 Jul 2025, Cedric Blancher wrote:
> Could the posix_spawn() work (branch heads/topic/posix_spawn) be > merged now, but the new version kept off by default unless an option > in the CYGWIN env var is set? > > That would make testing IMO much easier... Actually, no, it wouldn't, not for Cygwin developers (which this here mailing list is all about, after all). Developers like you and me (and like everyone else on this mailing list) know how to compile the Cygwin runtime and how to test it, how to roll it out on our staging systems, and how to fix any problems or at least how to fix them after asking a few well-informed questions on this mailing list. Mind you, there are many things in the Cygwin runtime that I do not understand, yet I feel comfortable enough playing with patches posted to this mailing list (or to `cygwin-patches`), so I am definitely not the most proficient partner when it comes to developing Cygwin. Just the same, I am confident that I help out where I can, and so can you. I did notice in the past that your emails often seemed to convey a different mindset (probably unintended by you?) in that they seemed to suggest that you weren't willing to do your part in developing Cygwin (and hence maybe those messages shouldn't have gone to `cygwin-developers` at all?). This is an open source project, after all, not a paid product where you can demand or suggest features. Instead, you're welcome to participate and help out to the extent of your abilities. Maybe my impression is totally off the mark, and you did intend to participate in the development of Cygwin, though it is a bit hard for me to see that... yet? > Institute Pasteur Oooh nice! In my previous career, I visited that institute twice, I think Jean-Yves is still there, as is Spencer. If you see them, say hi from me ;-) Ciao, Johannes
