Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/02/22/13:18:06
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 06:37:23PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 11:36:56AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 05:27:13PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >The problem is that a shortcut has to contain a DOS path, obviously.
>> >The new strategy is as follows:
>>
>> If this is the case, then we can't use .lnk files as the default symlinks.
>> DOS paths are not UNIX paths. The mount table will be bypassed in the symlinks.
>
>Chris,
>
>I'm a bit annoyed about your excoriating here. You're changing
>the code I have created and you're turning down the patch in
>public without even having asked me about the behaviour or having
>a deeper look into it.
What code am I changing? I sent you a patch and I explained why
I didn't feel comfortable with your code. I'm still not comfortable
with the goto.
I have pointed out other little glitches in your code before and you
have done the same for me. Sometimes people miss things. I'm not
going to assume that you infallible. I hope you will assume that
I am not infallible, too.
Right now, I'm trying to get ready to go out of time for a while so
I didn't feel like I had the time to do an in-depth review of your
changes. But I wanted to make some observations in case we were
going down a road that was unsupportable.
>If I only had a DOS path in a shortcut I wouldn't have introduced the
>patch. I'm not silly. I'm trying to generate useful code. If my
>style isn't exactly yours, sorry. But your current criticising sounds
>to me exactly the style of criticism we both don't like from the
>mailing list.
Changes like this should be discussed in public. Witness the
gdb-patches and gdb mailing list.
You're free to defend yourself and tell me that it doesn't work that
way. If you didn't want it publicly discussed then you shouldn't have
announced it in cygwin AT cygwin DOT com. I was a little surprised to see that
it was announced there before I'd even had a chance to evaluate it or
play with it and while I was still asking questions about the code.
I still have reservations about storing the dos path in the .lnk file.
Even if the cygwin path is stored there, there will exist a potential
disconnect between what the windows link is pointing to versus what the
cygwin portion is linking to. That could be surprising behavior.
I'm sorry if my mail sounded harsh, though. I guess I could have worded
it differently. I assumed that someone would notice the same thing that
I did with regard to dos paths so I wanted to make the observation ASAP.
cgf
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -