tty patch check in

Christopher Faylor
Wed Nov 27 07:32:00 GMT 2002

On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 03:27:14PM -0600, Steve O wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 03:09:59PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> and so really had no bearing on the thread.  I made it clear that
>> increasing the buffer size was not a fix for everything.  I didn't need
>> to have it brought to my attention, YA.
>I apologize.  The way I read it, increasing the buffer size was going 
>to fix the paste problem, and case closed.  I clearly was reacting
>> It needs more testing from more parties.  It would be nice if someone
>> like Egor could review the code, too.
>My understanding of the process was that changes would be committed
>to CVS then tested by the development community.  I think there's
>ample evidence that the patch doesn't cause immediate failure that
>would preclude developers from testing it.  If you really want
>more testing, checking it into CVS is the way to do it.

I was hoping that I wouldn't have to spend more time explaining this
but since I haven't seen any activity here, I guess that is not to

I don't check in patches into cygwin unless I'm comfortable with them.
I've already said that I'd like to see more discussion and more testing.
That doesn't mean that I have to be involved making snapshots for
somebody or checking things in.  The theory is that this is a community
effort.  In practice that's only a little bit true.  I'm sorry that the
cygwin-developers community is so anemic that it can't support something
like this but I'm not going to let that lack cause possible cygwin

And, as far as my concerns about support are concerned, it seems like
there are some bug reports circulating about rxvt in the cygwin mailing
list that are not being addressed.  That fact makes me even more leery
about adding this patch.

I'm sorry but these are the facts of life for cygwin.

>>My problem with changes this major is that eventually next week, or
>>next year, Corinna and I will end up supporting it.
>True, so how can I make the code easier for you to support?  I can
>introduce fixes in small chunks, that eventually add up to what we have
>now.  Would that be better?

Fixes in small chunks are *always* better.  I didn't realize that was a
possibility for this patch.


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list