On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 08:15:01AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >Bill, IMO you are missing a key point: > >Cygwin is volunteer maintained. No release manager volunteer, and no >stable release maintainer (who will maintain stable packages after they >become stale) have stepped up. > >The *only* way you will get a stable release is to: >1) offer to take on all the extra workload needed. >2) ask (nicely :}) for disk space at sources.redhat.com to hold (1) >possibly outdated copy of each package. >3) patch setup.exe, or talk nicely to me :} to give it the functionality >needed to support such an endeavour. > >I've spoken in favour of such an arrangement before, but didn't have the >time or personal need to justify making it happen. > >Oh, and if a 'stable' cygwin became the most downloaded one, I'm sure >you would get more assistance from the community - but trying to >convince us to do it is pretty pointless: we are already contributing >time and effort, and there has been plenty of opportunity for an extant >maintainer to pipe up with "I'll do it".
I will provide space on sources.redhat.com, if someone is interested in doing this. For the record, I have no interest in changing anything. DJ and I were well aware of the fact that the Cygwin release process would be different from Red Hat or Debian when we instituted the current policy. I don't see anything particularly broken in the process now* so I'm not going to be making any fixes. However, I'll support someone with disk space if they want to experiment with doing things differently. cgf *But I will, if pressed, offer many more opinions on this thread, so be warned. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/