On 18 August 2010 21:50, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Aug 18 21:32, William Blunn wrote: >> On 18/08/2010 19:26, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:40:17PM +0100, William Blunn wrote: >> >>My apologies to all the folks NOT involved in maintaining the ImageMagick >> >>package, but there doesn't appear to be any defined process for reporting >> >>bugs which might narrow down the attention-grab to a more relevant set of >> >>people. >> >Actually, this is the defined way to report bugs in a cygwin package. >> >> Ahhhh I see. It's /defined/ to be mediocre. >> >> Rather than attempting to solve the problem head-on, redefine the >> problem domain so that the problem is already solved. >> >> Inspired. > > Is there something in the water lately, which makes people on the > list more aggressive than usual? > > It hasn't been redefined at all. It's the common way of reporting > problems for a long time: http://cygwin.com/problems.html > > If you don't like it, I'm sorry. Are you going to volunteer to > maintain a Cygwin packages bug-tracking system?
Besides, thanks to the magic of mail filters, grabbing the attention of a package maintainer isn't the problem anyway. The issue is whether there's an active maintainer in the first place. Andy -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
