Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: ronald set sender to blytkerchan AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net using -f
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:46:19 +0200
From: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak <blytkerchan AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: pwd option to return windows path
Message-ID: <20031023134619.GD25421@linux_rln.harvest>
References: <20031022003445 DOT GC1229 AT mdssirds DOT comp DOT pge DOT com> <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAzKqZwgE0Ekq6HjOKEbfGv8KAAAAQAAAA+mnXAThKBkSxz2muDS8sEQEAAAAA AT acm DOT org> <20031022012824 DOT GF1229 AT mdssirds DOT comp DOT pge DOT com> <20031022015145 DOT GJ380 AT redhat DOT com> <20031022020853 DOT GA1923 AT mdssirds DOT comp DOT pge DOT com> <bn4u53$lib$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <20031022035741 DOT GA12717 AT redhat DOT com> <20031022043123 DOT GG1229 AT mdssirds DOT comp DOT pge DOT com> <20031022134757 DOT GB18407 AT redhat DOT com> <s5goew9xp20 DOT fsf AT egghead DOT curl DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <s5goew9xp20.fsf@egghead.curl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Disclaimer: I had nothing to do with it - I swear!
X-loop: linux_rln.harvest

This thread, though getting on my nerves, 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. 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


-- 
Everything takes longer, costs more, and is less useful.
		-- Erwin Tomash

--
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/