This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: pwd option to return windows path

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:

> This thread, though getting on my nerves,

Hear, hear...

> actually has a relatively interesting question in it. I think the answer
> is kinda obvious, though..
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 11:36:07AM -0400, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
> > P.S.  Speaking of special treatment, how come Cygwin is the only free
> > software project whose maintainers say "PTC" instead of "PGA"?  How
> > naive all those other maintainers must be!
> if the other projects say they will greatfully accept patches, they will
> also say that they will consider those patches beforrree greatfully
> accepting them - not doing so would either be lying or being incredably
> silly in the politics towards patches.
> The Cygwin maintainers are honest, hard-working people that have made some
> great ideas happen. Part of their honesty compells them to tell you that
> though patches will be thoughtfully considered, not all of them will be
> accepted - but those that are are done so greatfully.

PTCAMGA?  (Patches Thoughtfully Considered And Maybe Gratefully Accepted) ;-)

> For a patch to be considered, all the technical and legal problems that
> the patch may impose on the Cygwin developers must be dealt with. Not
> doing so would eventually kill the project.
> Personally, I think it is a Good Thing to be honesty and to have clear
> rules/procedures about how to handle development and accepting patches.
> I'm not saying other maintainers are naive, dishonest or stupid or anything,
> I'm just saying they also TC the Ps before GAing them :)
> rlc

There might be a difference in the interpretation of "accepted".  In the
Cygwin world, accepting a patch means including it into the codebase, and
here Ronald is right -- it's done gratefully (I have yet to see a case
where the contributor wasn't thanked for the patch).  Other projects may
mean "accept" in a sense of accepting a gift -- the patch is received and
the contributor thanked, but the patch may be thrown out to the bit bucket
later (just like you can throw out or pass along a gift you don't like,
e.g., the great American fruitcake voyages).  Frankly, I'd feel insulted
if I were thanked for the patch but later didn't find it applied.

FWIW, I agree with Ronald: it's much better to not give false hopes to the
contributors.  PTC means a promise that your patch will be discussed, and,
if it's rejected, the reasons for the rejection will be clearly stated
(and you'll have the opportunity to fix whatever's wrong with your patch,
if possible).  That, in my mind, is much better than the alternative.
      |\      _,,,---,,_
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster."  -- Patrick Naughton

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]