bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: nanosleep.c & winsock.h (was Re: Windows Build Broken - Feature Bran


From: Derek Robert Price
Subject: Re: nanosleep.c & winsock.h (was Re: Windows Build Broken - Feature Branch)
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 15:18:22 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040413

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Conrad T. Pino wrote:

>>Unless, of course, someone else
>>picks up the ball.  You never know with open source. ... :)
>
>
>Does that mean I'm not the only dunce that sprang the trap? :)


"Open source bugs get fixed to scratch some developers personal
itch."  Or something like that.  -Eric Raymond "The Cathedral & the
Bazaar".  In other words, if the maintainers of the project/other
develoeprs don't have the time, resources, and/or aren't annoyed
enough by a bug, and you want it fixed, you gotta fix it.  Sometimes
known as, "if you want it done right, do it yourself."  :)

>>If you were
>>paying us to maintain CVS, we might be obligated to fix the problems
>>you report.  :)
>
>
>And all this time I thought we were here for the glory!!! :)


Ah, but glory hardly _obligates_ me or any of the other
maintainers/developers to scratch _your_ itches.  :)

>>>Since the "usleep" question posed to Jim Meyering was aborted abruptly
>>>and without consultation I fail to see an incentive to participate but
>>>perhaps that was unintended.  
>>
>>It was.  I believe I mentioned usleep to you again for lack of  my own
>>sleep...  I jumped in when I saw you had brought it up on bug-gnulib
>>and I remembered that it wasn't really an option.
>
>
>Hmmm... "it wasn't really an option" is making a distinction I'm not
>getting.  To me, "usleep" in "woe32.c 1.2" is equivalent the Shaun's
>suggestion:
>
>int usleep(unsigned long useconds)
>{
>    /* Not very accurate, but it gets the job done */
>    Sleep(useconds/1000 + (useconds%1000 ? 1 : 0));
>    return 0;
>}
>
>Now I'm ignoring the *actual* resolution issue because that's an IA32
>(i386) issue and not Windows specific.  What am I missing?


You are apparently missing the fact that you were proposing that a
GNULIB module be cluttered with cruft that would be redundant with the
more portable select code on most platforms and useless on Windows
without an external implementation of a usleep function // to the
nanosleep function we were trying to avoid implementing externally in
the first place.

>Minor matter:  How about making "my_usleep" static?


Done.

>>>This looks like a delegation opportunity to me.
>>
>>Good luck.  Send $$ or patches.  :)
>
>
>Hmmm... How may $$ digits are we talking here? :)


That depends what you want me to do and how long it's going to take.
I have a few standard rules of thumbs I can provide you if you'd like
to take the discussion offline.  I'm tempted to say that there's a
premium for making me work in Windows, but I probably won't.  :)

>        And how much for your soul? :)


I have a soul?  Can I eat that?  :)

Cheers,

Derek

- --
                *8^)

Email: address@hidden

Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFApRt9LD1OTBfyMaQRAqpaAKCPRh1Banqqw7hcXr8mxAlrasIPoACgninl
OYS10o5n0w3MPexXAybLhEA=
=CBmn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]