Re: Are my emails being filtered out?
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 19:13:44 +0300
- From: LRN <lrn1986@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Are my emails being filtered out?
On 17.04.2019 18:30, Brian Inglis wrote: > On 2019-04-17 02:06, LRN wrote: >> I've been sending emails to this list for a couple of weeks now, and no >> one replies. Do these messages come through at all? > > The best way to initiate discussion may be replying to a previous post about a > package in the relevant group with patches (see below), or an email with a new > well written, specific subject. TL/DR version: i'm doing things correctly, AFAIU, CMIIW. I was sending messages to this list, the subject was 'cygwin port of glib'. That seems specific enough for me. If there's a detail that i forgot to mention in the subject, please advice, i'll gladly include it. There was initially a reply (by Erik M. Bray), so i guess it could also be counted as "replying to a previous post" as well. > All participants are volunteers, with busy jobs, lives, or families, who also > take trips and vacations. > Some maintain dozens, hundreds, or thousands of Cygwin packages, may participate > or work upstream, in other distros, packages, products, or standards groups. > You may have months but they may have only minutes or seconds for a topic - > respect that: "We are now living on Internet time" - Andy Grove, Intel, 1997. I probably wasn't clear. "A few months" is not the time that i can devote to this topic. It's the soft deadline that i've been given. The specific person i'm trying to communicate with doesn't seem to be on vacation (there was a message from that person in this mailing list yesterday, and eight days ago as well). As for being busy, i'm ok with an "i'm busy, will reply later" reply. I certainly not expect anyone to drop everything and devote all their time to researching the issues i raised. I do expect some kind of acknowledgement though. Guess i'm one of those people that don't like being ignored (and that's how it looks like, from where i'm sitting). > > The relevant groups for patch submission and discussion are cygwin-apps for > apps, cygwin-patches for winsup..., newlib for other library files, to which you > must subscribe, or the upstream maintainer via email on the source site, > normally using git format-patch/send-email against the latest sources, with well > written, specific subjects and commit log entries. I'm not submitting any patch or a package, i have a question about a patch that was already submitted in the past. cygwin-announce is obviously the wrong choice for this. cygwin-apps also seems a bad choice (i'm not a maintainer, and it's forbidden to subscribe to that list to ask questions about packages, which is what i want to ask). cygwin-developers is for devs only (i was already asked to not to post there in the past, when i had a question tangentially-related to Cygwin, and my current question certainly does not qualify as "related to Cygwin development"). cygwin-patches is for patch submissions only cygwin-talk is not for technical questions. That leaves this list ("In general, you should send questions and bug reports here"). The website that corresponds to the package in question is http://cygwinports.org/ , though its mailing list prescriptions are somewhat contradictory ("Issues with packages provided by Cygwin Ports in the Cygwin distribution should use the usual Cygwin mailing lists[i.e. this list?]. Please, do NOT send messages about the packages previously shipped here to the cygwin.com lists[i.e. this list?]."). Maybe i'm lacking some crucial piece of context information (does "packages previously shipped here" have some special meaning?). > > If the upstream source site has public email archives, issue or bug tracker, you > may be able to search for relevant Cygwin or maintainer content, or you may have > to ask the maintainer if an issue has already been raised with them. > cygwinports github site (section? repository group? user? I don't know how it's called on github) seems kind of bare. Looks like a mirror to me (i could be wrong, of course). No issues or PRs for the glib2.0 package either, so i can't be sure that anything i submit there is going to be noticed by anyone.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature