Re: MinGW (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Variation on an Alternate policy for obsoleting ta

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:50:29AM +0000, Gareth Pearce wrote:
>
>>[DJ Delorie]
>>>The solution to that, is to make those non-gcc developers gcc
>>>maintainers.  So make Danny the MinGW maintainer for GCC.
>>
>>Hmm.  I'll forward this to him.
>
>Personally, I thought that Danny already was mingw maintainer,
>togeather with cgf.  Looks like its just cgf officially.  Based on
>cgf's comments on cygwin mailing list I think Danny being official
>wingw maintainer would work.

I would not mind at all but don't think it would cause any change in
mingw gcc suppot for Danny to be a maintainer.  AFAIK, the problem is
not with my not responding to Danny's requests for changes and, in fact,
we have collaborated on a few changes.

The problem for MinGW is the same problem as the rest of GCC (and many other
free software projects for that matter).  Patches don't get reviewed quickly.
The situation with MinGW or Cygwin may be exacerbated by the fact that
the core developers don't use Windows but I couldn't say that with any
great certainty.  I'd have to measure how other patches are handled.

I'm not complaining about this in any way.  If I need a patch reviewed,
I know who to bug.  I have bugged people about patches and bugs in the
past.  And, in rare cases, I've even fixed a bug or two myself.  However,
I also realize that this is a volunteer project so whatever I get, I'm
grateful for.

Can we maybe stop talking about this now?  I really think it's a non-issue.

cgf