At 06:31 PM 7/31/2013 +0000, Stephan Mueller wrote: >Yeah, I can see your viewpoint here. Christopher >is known for being brusque at times. And you may >have, no doubt accidentally, pushed a hot button >for this particular community. > >For what it's worth, the Cygwin folks do prefer >that people join the community when asking for >help. Personally, I have no problem with hitting >'Reply All' to make sure the author of a message >gets a reply in addition to the group, but I think >it's also a reasonable stance that to get support >for a free product, people take the small step of >joining the mailing list.
Some people like myself cannot abide subscribing to firehose mailing lists and prefer to view discussion threads with a browser. It does not mean contributors, direct or indirect, are any of value. Even if I were a direct contributor monitoring it closely, I would /dev/null the list and browse it. >As for Christopher's brusequeness, I don't read >what he wrote as nastiness; he's really just being >extremely direct. Rude at a minimum. The old saying applies: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. >it's absolutely true that it's >unlikely that anyone is going to look into this >problem because it's not clear what the steps to >reproduce the problem are, or even what the >symptoms are, at this point. It was fairly obvious from my message that I was reservedly offering to help find the problem, not in particular of a fix. Finding the cause of such problems is generally 3x to 10x harder than fixing them, so the loss here is the community's. >A reasonable next step might be for you to provide >the list with more specific info on the problem. >The acronym STC (simple test case) is often found >on the list -- as in "STC appreciated". STCs are rarely "simple" to create. Usually a ton of work. >Ultimately, I'd encourage you to give the list >another chance Not this summer. Have helped in the past but don't have much time have been turned off. >since the folks there (Christopher >and Corinna are the two who do the bulk of the >work on cygwin1.dll -- and as far as I know it's >all volunteer) are generally very responsive to >specific bug reports and turn around fixes >quickly. I am, aware of this and do appreciate their efforts and CYGWIN, which is a great product. >If you don't help isolate the issues >that are causing _you_ grief, then you may be >forever stuck on 1.7.16. I dropped in 1.7.17 DLLs and it works fine. Fixes the CTRL-C problem and the point behind it all, running a critical build script, work as well. > >stephan($0.02); > >-----Original Message----- >From: cygwin-owner at cygwin dot com >On Behalf Of starlight.2013z3 at binnacle dot cx >Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 10:26 AM >To: cygwin at cygwin dot com >Subject: Re: possible bug in 1.7.22-1 core DLLs > >Well I uncovered a serious regression >and expressed a willingness to track >down the cause. > >However your nasty reply and bad attitude >assures that I will defintiely not help >now. > >At 01:21 PM 7/31/2013 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>You are right in assuming that newer DLLs should >>work with older binaries but no one is willing to >>do tech support or debugging based on vague >>problem reports. So, it isn't clear exactly what >>you're expecting. If you think someone is going >>to take a "1.7.16" installation and then drop a >>newer cygwin1.dll into it to debug your problem >>then you are likely going to be disappointed - >>especially if you can't even be bothered to >>subscribe to the mailing list. > > -- 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
