This is the mail archive of the cygwin 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: Cygwin kill utility //Was: cgwin_internal(): difference b/w CW_CYGWIN_PID_TO_WINPID and CW_GETPINFO_FULL for taking only dwProcessId ?

On Apr  8 12:49, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 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.

What he says.

And just if it's still not clear, despite the fact that WJM, we would
*love* to get more patches.  It doesn't mean your patch will go in
without scrutinizing and maybe we ask for changes, but we're always open
to bug fixes and cool new functionality, as long as it's POSIXy (or
Linuxy in case they differ).


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Attachment: pgp_KniH0x0er.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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