On May 3 12:26, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> FWIW, I fully support your stance that your unilaterally-imposed
> "disqualification" was unwarranted. At the same time, it's not difficult to
> understand Hans' consternation and reaction to the situation. Doxygen is a
> very useful package, and it wo
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:26:20PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>FWIW, I fully support your stance that your unilaterally-imposed
>"disqualification" was unwarranted. At the same time, it's not
>difficult to understand Hans' consternation and reaction to the
>situation. Doxygen is a very usef
005 9:52 AM
>> To: cygwin-apps GROUPIE cygwin KOOK com
>> Subject: Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload:
>> doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
>>
>> On May 3 13:02, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> > Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> > The
[snip]
> >> So you're comparing your specific situation with Gary's years long
> >> history of adding useless comments to cgf's postings in the Cygwin
> >> ML?
> >
> > Ahem, yeah, let's make that: "...Gary's years long history
> of taking
> > Chris to task for his years-long history of uncalled
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:52 AM
To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload:
doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:52 AM
> To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload:
> doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n&
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On May 3 13:02, Max Bowsher wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
The fact that a few words of mild intention can be misinterpreted and
seed
an accidental high tension mess has been amply well demonstrated on the
cygwin list recently, in the CGF/GRVS thread.
So you're comparing
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:51:46PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On May 3 13:02, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>The fact that a few words of mild intention can be misinterpreted and
>>seed an accidental high tension mess has been amply well demonstrated
>>on the cygwin list rec
On May 3 13:02, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> The fact that a few words of mild intention can be misinterpreted and seed
> an accidental high tension mess has been amply well demonstrated on the
> cygwin list recently, in the CGF/GRVS thread.
So you're comparing your specific
Max,
no - you have not disqualified yourself in my eyes.
And therefore, you should be the new doxygen owner/maintainer if you want it
that badly.
I also think that we should put this issue finally to rest, stop pouting and
get on with life!
greets,
H.
Max Bowsher wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Otherwise, MaxB has
disqualified himself from doxygen package maintainership,
I would to appeal this, please, because I do not believe it is fair to
censure me for a misunderstanding that I have explained and apologized for.
The fact that a few words of mild intention ca
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I've waited several days to respond to this because I wanted to make
sure that I was in the proper emotional state and didn't just fire off a
knee-jerk reaction.
Ditto.
Nevertheless, I remain appalled by this turn of events. I saw nothing
in Hans' email which indicated th
Chris, Corinna & Max,
thanks but no thanks.
I had a real rough start with this, which utterly discouraged me and
dampened my enthusiasm to maintain
anything at this time considerably!
So please consider doxygen and bash to be up again for grabs!
As far as I am concerned, can't you just let Max be
On Apr 25 14:09, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 12:35:19AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
> >Accordingly, I hereby ITP doxygen myself:
>
> I've waited several days to respond to this because I wanted to make
> sure that I was in the proper emotional state and didn't just fire off a
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 12:35:19AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Hans W. Horn wrote:
>>Alright,
>>
>>Max Bowsher wrote:
>>>No, still wrong. You didn't read what I said carefully enough.
>>>You *need* to understand:
>>>Filenames are expected to be EXACTLY:
>>>NAME-VERSION-RELEASE.tar.bz2
>>>NAME-VERSIO
Max Bowsher wrote:
...
Having got the superficial naming problems out of the way, I took a
closer look at the source packaging.
There were many issues - the most serious being that the source
package did not even contain the Cygwin specific readme at all - and
hear - hear (you didn't look, did you?
Max Bowsher wrote:
Hans W. Horn wrote:
Max Bowsher wrote:
...
Having got the superficial naming problems out of the way, I took a
closer look at the source packaging.
Superficial? In your earlier complaints you made it sound as if those naming
issues were of utmost importance!
There were many iss
Hans W. Horn wrote:
Max Bowsher wrote:
...
Having got the superficial naming problems out of the way, I took a
closer look at the source packaging.
There were many issues - the most serious being that the source
package did not even contain the Cygwin specific readme at all - and
hear - hear (you d
Hans W. Horn wrote:
Alright,
Max Bowsher wrote:
No, still wrong. You didn't read what I said carefully enough.
You *need* to understand:
Filenames are expected to be EXACTLY:
NAME-VERSION-RELEASE.tar.bz2
NAME-VERSION-RELEASE-src.tar.bz2
I guess I never appreciated the subtle naming convention used
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 10:42:04AM -0700, Hans W. Horn wrote:
>It's only subtle, until you've digested that in this notation RELEASE is a
>cygwin version attribute and VERSION is an upstream version attribute
>(which on its own may already use a similar naming convention, such as
>doxygen-1.4.2-
It's only subtle, until you've digested that in this notation RELEASE is a
cygwin version attribute and VERSION is an upstream version attribute (which
on its own may already use a similar naming convention, such as
doxygen-1.4.2-20050410).
Confused the hell out of me!
H.
Christopher Faylor wro
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 10:30:12AM -0700, Hans W. Horn wrote:
>Max Bowsher wrote:
>>No, still wrong. You didn't read what I said carefully enough. You
>>*need* to understand:
>>Filenames are expected to be EXACTLY:
>>NAME-VERSION-RELEASE.tar.bz2
>>NAME-VERSION-RELEASE-src.tar.bz2
>
>I guess I nev
Alright,
Max Bowsher wrote:
No, still wrong. You didn't read what I said carefully enough.
You *need* to understand:
Filenames are expected to be EXACTLY:
NAME-VERSION-RELEASE.tar.bz2
NAME-VERSION-RELEASE-src.tar.bz2
I guess I never appreciated the subtle naming convention used for cygwin
packages.
23 matches
Mail list logo
