This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: Request for a version/ revision/ release number for the whole Cygwin release/ distribution
- From: Brian Ford <ford at vss dot fsi dot com>
- To: David Christensen <dpchrist at holgerdanske dot com>
- Cc: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:06:15 -0500
- Subject: RE: Request for a version/ revision/ release number for the whole Cygwin release/ distribution
- References: <200410030214.i932ESVF003419@a.mail.sonic.net>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, David Christensen wrote:
> I disagree. Assume for a moment that all Cygwin project member
> development efforts can be put into the following bins:
> 1. Code development.
> 2. Design documentation.
> 3. Test suite development.
> 4. Test suite documentation.
> 5. Test suite execution and reporting.
> 6. User documentation.
> 7. Packaging for distribution.
> 8. Infrastructure development.
> 9. Infrastructure administration.
> 10. Version control/ configuration management of all of the above.
> 11. Personnel leadership and project management.
You missed user support, like this mailing list, and package maintainers.
Both parties are not usually developers.
> It would seem that bin #1 is consuming the majority of the effort.
Along with the massive 3+ developers in bin #1, their are a
handfull of mailing list regulars who provide user support, thirty or so
package maintainers (not developers; they just act as liasons between
users and up stream development communities like rsync), and a FAQ and
users guide maintainer. Also, those 3+ developers in bin #1 try for a
healthy dash of 2 and 3 when practicle or necessary because of the
Notice the choice of the word "maintainer" in several contexts above. It
accurately conveys that these people don't have time to create content,
only maintain what others contribute and coordinate those contributions.
> I think that by changing priorities and re-allocating people and
> resources, it should be possible to create integration tests and a
> "stable" distribution. Such would increase Cygwin's acceptance and
> usage for potentially hundreds of millions of people. Is this not a
> good thing?
So, rearranging the efforts of the above ~60 people will give you your
desired result? It should be obvious from the responses so far that there
are not many of those ~60 people interested in this rearrangement.
You vastly over estimate the number of actual contributers to the Cygwin
project and their time and skill levels.
> Let me restate: I am still waiting to hear from whomever fills the role
> of Cygwin volunteer coordinator.
You assume their is such? Are you volunteering?
As stated before, you have already heard from all persons who have
positions of "authority." Now do you understand the size of these vast
resources you keep refering to?
> E.g. "Hi, I'm the Cygwin volunteer coordinator. Thank you for offering
> to volunteer to help with the Cygwin project. Please read the following
> introductory materials so that you know what to expect and what is
> expected of you (URL, URL, URL).
> After that, please review the following task list (task board URL?)
There used to be one, but it was removed as it was rarely used
Senior Realtime Software Engineer
VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems
the best safety device in any aircraft is a well-trained pilot...
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html