Andy Ross wrote:

> Erik Hofman wrote:
> > Norman Vine wrote:
> > > FWIW I think these apply here
> > >
> > >
> >
> > These two contradict (You can't offend them but they can offend you).
> > It's a nice document on how to approach a three year old though.
> It's actually a pretty good guide.  The problem is I don't know how I
> could have followed it any better.  I mean, I *am* the hacker type ESR
> is talking about.
> The was, IMHO, a fantasy bug report:
> + A symptom so painfully obvious that no technical knowlege is
>   required to see it (1.6 seconds vs. 26 seconds run time)
> + Simple example code
> + Easily reproduced within a few commands
> + Requires no external dependencies (just gcc and the mingw libraries)
> + And a real world use case (us!) for why it's important that it be
>   fixed.
> To turn it around: could you imaging me responding to this bug report:
>   "Here's a simple Nasal script that reduces my FPS to 2-3."
> with:
>   "If it is really important to you, you should try to fix it rather
>    than posting here and trying to get lucky." (pretty much exactly
>    Chris's words).
> I mean, sometimes I'm lazy or forget stuff, but I'm generally pretty
> good about admitting when a bug is a bug.  That's my *job* as a
> developer.  Who does that job for cygwin?

Well, that all generated more heat than light! I almost wish I hadn't set
the hare running.

I have never seen anyone react quite like this Faylor chap, from which I

A. He already knew he has a problem with Cygwin's speed.

B. He doesn't know how to fix it.

C. We're unlikely to see it sorted any time soon.

I'm more than willing to be proven wrong.

Meanwhile, thanks to Andy for daring to enter the lion's den :-)



Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to