[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no conspiracy. What is needed is for there to be a vocal
advocate on the gcc list for Windows patches. I can only approve a very
limited amount of stuff so we need gcc global maintainers to approve the
majority of Windows fixes.
I didn't call it a conspiracy, but I myself have been the recipient of
comments from Microsoft personnel like "we don't want you using cygwin,
we won't fix Windows bugs which are reported mainly by cygwin users." I
don't claim to see uniformity in positions taken by people representing
Microsoft.
The people you mention are not the only ones who have discontinued
visible activity after taking a prominent role in cygwin.
Not that I have the competence to solve any such problems, but if you
check gcc-testsuite you should see that I have posted the greatest
number of cygwin results the last 10 years, since well before my present
employment. The average time for action on the few gcc PR's and patches
I have proposed exceeds a year, so I don't claim an effective record.
If evidence is presented that my doing so has hindered the success of
cygwin, or constitutes a conflict of interest, I will not attempt to
resume testing.
I won't comment on the magnitude of efforts (sometimes successful) by
non-open software vendors to get even treatment from Microsoft; so I
mention my obligation to disclaim any relationship between what I say
here and my employer's activities.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
