On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 01:28:08PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And of course the discussion and methodology behind the internal
development of the cygwin libraries, issues, and future ideas is
- in true opensource form (NOT) - on a completely closed list,
invite-only, with no public access
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 11:10:47PM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 01:28:08PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And of course the discussion and methodology behind the internal
development of the cygwin libraries, issues, and future ideas is
- in true opensource form
Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:48:14AM +0100, Darryl Miles wrote:
Is my more technical discussion better put onto the cygwin-patches list
?
No. The mailing list descriptions really are accurate. If you don't
have a
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 03:42:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
No. The mailing list descriptions really are accurate. If you don't
have a patch, then you shouldn't be sending email to cygwin-patches.
Most cygwin development discussion occurs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 7/1/2006 2:28 PM:
And of course the discussion and methodology behind the internal
development of the cygwin libraries, issues, and future ideas is
- in true opensource form (NOT) - on a completely closed list,
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 03:42:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:48:14AM +0100, Darryl Miles wrote:
Is my more technical discussion better put onto the cygwin-patches list
?
No. The mailing list
There is this list, which seems general purpose. Enough said.
There is cygwin-patches, which claims to be for patch submissions but
looking at the recent history is actually an open developers list.
There is cygwin-developers, which is a closed list.
Is my more technical discussion better
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:48:14AM +0100, Darryl Miles wrote:
Is my more technical discussion better put onto the cygwin-patches list
?
No. The mailing list descriptions really are accurate. If you don't
have a patch, then you shouldn't be sending email to cygwin-patches.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe
8 matches
Mail list logo