Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/07/09/17:06:11
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:37:10AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
>*** Christopher Faylor (ufocgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com DOT tv)...:
>
>If I make this research, you do the change in the way the archives are
>generated, so that all people in this thread be happy. Do we have a
>deal?
Here's how it works: You do the research yourself, then you present your
case where I have previously stated. My participation is not required.
There are others who know about this and anyone who does reads the
overseers mailing list.
I do not want to be involved in doing this. I do not have the right to
unilaterally change the mail archiving software on sourceware.org. I am
not going to be your champion for this policy change for this site.
>:) >>OTOH, if anyone wants to change the policy of sourceware.org, you are
>:) >>welcome to send email to the overseers mailing list and lobby for
>:) >>change. I don't think you are going to find a receptive audience,
>:) >>but I could be wrong.
>:) >
>:) >I don't think it's the time to send such request. I will wait a couple
>:) >of years to do so.
>:)
>:) Then you are done with this discussion except as a theoretical exercise,
>:) apparently.
>
>I did not say so. You are very good to "infer" INCORRECT opinions out
>loud. You SHOULD not. This is not a theoretical exercise, you can do
>something about it that I can not.
If I am the only one with the power, then I am the one who can tell you
that further discussion will have no practical effect. You are welcome
to continue to expound on the virtues of "format=flowed" (even if it is
off-topic here). When you do so, however, it will be merely a
theoretical exercise since there will be no action taken here.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -