This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Cygwin kill utility //Was: cgwin_internal(): difference b/w CW_CYGWIN_PID_TO_WINPID and CW_GETPINFO_FULL for taking only dwProcessId ?
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 12:49:02 -0400
- Subject: Re: Cygwin kill utility //Was: cgwin_internal(): difference b/w CW_CYGWIN_PID_TO_WINPID and CW_GETPINFO_FULL for taking only dwProcessId ?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C8AED9C at MLBXv04 dot nih dot gov> <20140408031817 dot GA1796 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C8B4372 at MLBXv04 dot nih dot gov> <20140408090129 dot GC28755 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <6CF2FC1279D0844C9357664DC5A08BA2464FF5 at MLBXV06 dot nih dot gov> <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C8B85C2 at MLBXv04 dot nih dot gov> <20140408152118 dot GB4595 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <5344236E dot 8020503 at aol dot com>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 12:27:26PM -0400, Tim Prince wrote:
>On 4/8/2014 11:21 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Non-sarcastic translation: Don't expect us to know about your s**t. We
>> have standard expectations for this free software project and the
>> expectations are do not include keeping a mental map of the rules of
>> every email domain that sends messages here so that we can avoid
>> asking for a patch. I'm with Corinna in wondering how you can use
>> GPLed software at all if you are so limited.
>Now that I'm retired, if I thought there were any point in figuring out
>why gcc test suite fails to kill the hung tests, I'd be happy to send
>any patch. This comment appears to imply there is no point.
Huh? We consistently ask for patches. The whole POINT of this thread
was that we want patches.
>Meanwhile, I go to Windows task manager and kill them manually, so they
>report XPASS. My former employer permitted only employees with a job
>description including support of open source software to submit
>patches, even though we all had to take the annual quiz about GPL etc.
>That employer has products which run under cygwin bash (not linked
>against cygwin1.dll), some so intended, more of them not.
Hopefully everyone is aware of the fact that employers have restrictions
on what kind of code their employees can publish.
I'll make my point again so that someone else can creatively
misinterpret it: If you have tracked down a problem and think you see a
fix then we appreciate patches. If you can't send a patch because it
isn't allowed then MAKE THAT POINT CLEAR UP FRONT. Otherwise, you're
courting a needless back and forth interaction.
FYI, if you can't send a patch, don't expect that you have people on
call standing by who will be happy to make code changes for you. While
I do appreciate that some organizations have stringent rules that
doesn't mean that I (and I assume Corinna) want to reprioritize our
lives to deal with creatively editing code to deal with an issue that
you found. We may get to it eventually but the lack of patch puts
the change down on the priority queue.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple