Web lists-archives.com

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

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

> 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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature