On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 12:04:09AM -0500, Steven Penny wrote: >On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> Instructions on how to check out the source are available at the cygwin web >> site, just like they are at every open source site. Go to the cygwin web >> page and look to the left. You'll see "Contributing" and "Source in CVS". >> Both lead you to instructions. "Contributing" is intended to help with >> providing patches. "Source in CVS" is obvious. > >I dont think you "get" my and perhaps other people's workflow. It goes >like this
I replied directly to your observation that you couldn't find the Cygwin source control information by pointing you at the places you apparently missed on the Cygwin web page. So I'm pretty sure that I got it. I checked your message multiple times to make sure that I didn't miss a reference to the places on the web page which talk about the CVS repository. So, if you think that I missed your point then I don't think you stated it clearly. >1. discover something that isnt working >2. go to web repo Which is referenced in the link I provided. >3. search existing issues That would be the mailing list archives (as advertised) but also, see below. >4. search current codebase, online, to find offending file/line That would be the "web repo", assuming you are using terminology correctly. >5. if it looks like something I can fix then clone/checkout Instructions for which are in the link I provided. >Notice a checkout is not even done until step 5, with steps 1-4 all >being done through web interface. This is important. Your users >(read: potential devs) should not have to do a clone just to see the >problem in the code. You don't seem to have gotten the fact that I pointed you at a page which had a pointer to the web repo (which you puzzlingly had already found). Also, you probably should try to use correct terminology if you are trying to make a point. CVS doesn't "clone". Except for the lack of an advertised bugzilla link at the Cygwin web page, Cygwin is like every one of the other projects hosted at sourceware.org/gcc.gnu.org. This includes thriving projects like gcc, binutils, gdb, and others. All of the developers in those projects were able to figure out how to find CVS (svn, git) web information and, eventually, check out their stuff. Cygwin is a thriving project but only because we have lots of package maintainers and two dedicated DLL maintainers. It's thriving because we have a lot of users. We don't, unlike gcc, gdb, binutils, or newlib have a lot of developers. That is likely because the Windows nature of the project means that we get a different class of users than, e.g., gcc. It's not because it so amazingly difficult to navigate http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/?cvsroot=src or check out code. Cygwin does differ from the abovementioned projects in that it has a lot more content available to attempt to explain things like mailing lists and installation. That is, again, because it seems like we don't attract a highly technical audience who can figure this out without a some help. Corinna (a Red Hat employee) and I are both involved in open source projects. I know (I wouldn't speak for Corinna) how laughable (I use that term because you obviously like frankness) it is to say that it's hard to get to the source control. It simply isn't true. We use the same model as lots of other open source sites. We are behind the times because we haven't switched to git yet but, since we didn't have many developers when git wasn't around, it's hard to see how git is the gating factor. Anway, we have been contemplating advertising Cygwin's bugzilla but neither Corinna nor I are keen on policing what could degenerate into scores of "Command not found" bug reports. If someone wants to volunteer to be a bugzilla cop I'd love to deputize them. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
