Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin-developers=delorie DOT com AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: patl AT cag DOT lcs DOT mit DOT edu (Patrick J. LoPresti)
To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: Maintainers wanted
References: <19991118160433 DOT A13395 AT cygnus DOT com> <s5gyabu9xxh DOT fsf AT egghead DOT curl DOT com> <19991119134308 DOT A17744 AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: 19 Nov 1999 15:17:57 -0500
In-Reply-To: Chris Faylor's message of "Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:43:08 -0500"
Message-ID: <s5gpux68ccq.fsf@egghead.curl.com>
Lines: 35
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.27/Emacs 20.4

 cgf> Hopefully, any maintainer of something like bash will be using
 cgf> whatever setup exists for bash already.

I assumed "maintenance" included some kind of source code munging, not
just typing "make".

 cgf> If they have to make a change to get things compiled under
 cgf> cygwin they will send a patch or check in a change or whatever
 cgf> to the bash maintainer.

Getting a change through the official maintainer of a tool can take
time (sometimes months or years, if history is any guide).  Why make
Cygwin releases dependent on every official release of a tool?

With the sources under CVS, the official releases are a "vendor"
branch, and any Cygwin-specific modifications appear on the trunk.
CVS makes it easy to track the deltas, to create diffs for submission
to the official maintainer, and to merge the deltas with new official
releases.

 cgf> I don't think that it will be profitable for us to be running a
 cgf> "competing" service for packages that cygnus does not host.

It would not be competing.  Nobody will grab anything from the Cygwin
repository unless they are running Cygwin.  Anyone who wants to work
on Cygwin needs to get the Cygwin sources anyway, since there is no
way to know whether the Cygwin version has modifications which are not
in the stock releases.  A CVS repository would find allow anyone to
find out trivially EXACTLY what the deltas are between the Cygwin
version and the stock release, as well as making it easier for random
people to contribute to the effort.

As I said, just a suggestion.

 - Pat