Re: Why are Windows paths broken in make 3.81?

Re: Why are Windows paths broken in make 3.81?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:30:22PM +0100, Mark Fisher wrote:
>On 7/24/06, Joachim Achtzehnter <joachima@netacquire.com> wrote:
>>This sarcastic response to one sentence out of a much longer post quoted in
>>isolation suggests that a clarification is in order.
>
>here here! i'd like to add that i'm getting fed up of reading sarcastic
>comments from cgf since i rejoined the mailing list.

For the record, it was an intentionally sarcastic response to the standard
"I wasn't asking anyone to do anything" message.

There was one report of a SEGV in make with no details and there was a
mention of "inconvenience" with newlines which seemed to be suggesting
at unplanned behavior in the latest release of make.  It is quite
frustrating to see people send vague comments about brokenness.  Ask any
package maintainer.  We do want to fix problems (especially SEGV
problems) but none of us wants to be ornithological dentists.

>this particular gem:
>
>>>I assumed the compiled program would work in a bash shell but it only
>>>works in a dos shell-its too late to worry about why that is.  I miss
>>>unix.
>>
>>Yeah, things work a lot better in a dos shell on unix.
>( http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-07/msg00682.html )
>
>the sole comment to an entire post sums up for me a very arrogant
>attitude towards people with less knowledge who need help.
>
>this forum (i hope) was never meant as a personal sarcasm area and to
>read it it's very annoying.
>
>if you don't have something constructive to say, lay off laying into
>people.

No thanks.

Here's how the dynamic works: Sometimes people send completely clueless
email and sometimes you get a less-then-serious (or even annoyed)
response from me, Corinna, Dave, Larry, Eric, etc.

When someone notices one of these from *me* then they definitely get all
hot and bothered, predict the death of cygwin, and eventually an
eliza-like AI will be triggered which will start complaining (these
days) in cygwin-talk.  All of the other people who respond similarly are
just silently ignored because they don't say things anywhere near as
mean and hurtful as "Yeah, things work a lot better in a dos shell on
unix."

Here's the bottom line: If you want results then behave in a way that is
likely to get them.  Use complete sentences.  Provide details when you
report problems.  Don't send long boring messages asserting why you need
things and don't express outrage that the free stuff you've been using
doesn't work the way you want it to.  Listen to advice and respond to it
directly.  Call the project/product by its correct name (don't call it
"CygWin" or "Cyg").  Don't assume that people understand your mindset,
use acronyms which are not widely known, or talk about packages as if
everyone in the world uses them.  Don't complain that you have no time
to provide details and expect that there will be someone with time to
track things down for you.

You don't need to be a seasoned professional to understand these rules.
Most of them boil down to courtesy and common sense.  You're doing the
right thing by asking a project mailing list for help.  But you're not
doing the smart thing if you ask for help in a vague or insulting way.

cgf

(who wonders if he has the strength this week to deal with the inevitable
fallout from this message)

RE: Why are Windows paths broken in make 3.81?

[Dave Korn]

On 24 July 2006 19:23, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> [ ... snip ... ] predict the death of cygwin, [ ... snip ... ]

   Film at 11!

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Why are Windows paths broken in make 3.81?

[mwoehlke]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:30:22PM +0100, Mark Fisher wrote:
>> this forum (i hope) was never meant as a personal sarcasm area and to
>> read it it's very annoying.
>>
>> if you don't have something constructive to say, lay off laying into
>> people.
> 
> [snip] 
> Here's the bottom line: If you want results then behave in a way that is
> likely to get them.  Use complete sentences.  Provide details when you
> report problems.  Don't send long boring messages asserting why you need
> things and don't express outrage that the free stuff you've been using
> doesn't work the way you want it to.  Listen to advice and respond to it
> directly.  Call the project/product by its correct name (don't call it
> "CygWin" or "Cyg").  Don't assume that people understand your mindset,
> use acronyms which are not widely known, or talk about packages as if
> everyone in the world uses them.  Don't complain that you have no time
> to provide details and expect that there will be someone with time to
> track things down for you.

IOW, read http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html like we 
told you to. If you post something that indicates failure to have done 
so, then expect us to respond accordingly. We warned you. It's not our 
fault you can't read the directions. :-)

Until posting to the list requires people to pass an etiquette test (not 
a bad idea IMHO), the best we can do is try to beat people over the head 
with pointers and hope they read them. Having done that, I at least 
don't have a lot of sympathy for people that can't read and follow 
directions, and while I might not personally choose to respond in the 
manner cgf seems to be choosing lately, I totally understand why he does.

Of course, the wonderful irony is that people who have *not* read the 
above have also missed the part where the same guidelines tell them 
exactly what to expect for failure to read and obey said guidelines. :-)

-- 
Matthew
Warning: This message has not been approved by the FDA.

Re: Why are Windows paths broken in make 3.81?

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:30:22PM +0100, Mark Fisher wrote:
> On 7/24/06, Joachim Achtzehnter <joachima@netacquire.com> wrote:
> >This sarcastic response to one sentence out of a much longer post quoted in
> >isolation suggests that a clarification is in order.
> 
> here here! i'd like to add that i'm getting fed up of reading sarcastic
> comments from cgf since i rejoined the mailing list.

The solution seems obvious...

Re: Why are Windows paths broken in make 3.81?

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 02:55:26PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 02:42:40PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 10:12:17AM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
> >>Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 06:03:43PM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
> >>>>There was also some difference in newline handling which required
> >>>>another set of sed changes, arghh!
> >>>
> >>>Well with detailed bug reports like this and the previous "make
> >>>provides an error on one of my complex makefiles" we're surely well on
> >>>the road towards perfection.
> >>
> >>This sarcastic response to one sentence out of a much longer post
> >>quoted in isolation suggests that a clarification is in order.  Neither
> >>of my previous posts, not the one about the "threadlist_ix -1" error
> >>and not the one I wrote specifically in response to a claim that the
> >>recent changes to make were "not an inconvenience", were written with
> >>any expectations for a fix.
> >
> >Well, you *could* expect a fix if you provided enough details.
> >
> >It is pretty frustrating to see content-free bug reports like "there was
> >also some difference in newline handling" or "My big/complicated
> >makefile SEGVs".  Whether you intended these as bug reports or not, they
> >are still reports of problems and no package maintainer wants to see
> >reported problems sent to thousand of people whether they were just
>                                    s
> >intended to blow off steam or not.

A fine example of a non-content-free post (though it did take me a couple
of looks to see the content.)