Re: Followup on eliminating symlink ReadFile calls -- it's not necessary

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 08:57:36AM -0500, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
>Second, Cygwin may not be a "product" right now, but it certainly
>*wants* to be one, doesn't it?  Isn't there a goal here that Cygwin
>will be a stable, widely used, and "commodity" software package?  Or
>it going to be a cute little thing used by a smale cadre of hackers
>forever?

Cygwin "wants" to be a typical free software project.  That's it.  That
means that it will be subject to the usual number of indignant
complaints because things aren't perfect.

>If you are saying that you don't think Cygwin ever, at any point in
>the future, needs comprehensive documentation, then I suppose there
>isn't much for us to talk about, because I completely disagree.  If
>you agree that Cygwin *does* eventually need such documentation, then
>we should be improving the documentation along with the software, not
>repeatedly saying, "Well, we don't need documentation now because the
>software is unstable," over and over again, until we suddenly find
>ourselves at the point where the software is stable but we still don't
>have the documentation.
>
>The fact that there is so much documentation would seem to indicate
>that there are people who believe that we should have such
>documentation.

Who is this "we" you are talking about?  No one has said or implied that
improvements to the documentation are not desirable.  Are you thinking
about contributing documentation?

If not, then let's stop this thread now.  It's not going anywhere.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple