On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 03:42:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: >"Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in >message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:48:14AM +0100, Darryl Miles wrote: >>>Is my more technical discussion better put onto the cygwin-patches list >>>? >> >>No. The mailing list descriptions really are accurate. If you don't >>have a patch, then you shouldn't be sending email to cygwin-patches. > >Most cygwin development discussion occurs on the main list or on >cygwin-apps.
Discussion of cygwin DLL development is not handled in cygwin-apps. It is mainly discussed on irc between Corinna and me. If someone reports a problem porting an application in cygwin-apps then it is possible that Corinna or I might make a change but that is true of any mailing list which Corinna or I read. There is a miniscule amount of traffic in the cygwin list about development and even less traffic in the pretty-much-defunct cygwin-developers list. >Basically The general rule for cygwin apps appears to be that the first >messgage in a thread has to be about creation of new packages, or >discussions about packaging policy. (Also requests for uploads go to >that list). Then the disussion can drift a little to more general >cygwin development, but should still be in the context of a specific >package. No. The description in the mailing list is correct. If there is an occasional query about cygwin internals it is not a very frequent occurrence in cygwin-apps. >Also, discussion of the development of setup.exe usually takes place on >cygwin-apps, because that is the designated list for discussing bugs in >setup.exe The description at http://cygwin.com/lists.html really is up-to-date. There is no need to second guess it. cgf -- 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/
