Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/01/26/16:29:05
At 02:10 PM 1/26/2005, you wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Larry Hall wrote:
>
>> of variations and options available that were not there heretofore.
>> This is the reason I directed Neven back to Peter's site. Clearly,
>> though, if Neven and others that use the "cygwin time machine" can get
>> what they need from the cygwin.com web pages to help them with any problems
>> they have after using the "cygwin time machine", then that's great. But
>> my position is that folks that have a problem after using Peter's site need
>> to consult Peter, at least at first, the same as any other 3rd party site.
>
>I completely agree with Larry here. I've provided the "rope" for people
>to "hang themselves", the least I can do is help them out when they are
>just "dangling" there (umm...sorry for the metaphor :). I will be adding
>doc to the webpage talking about the perils of downgrading, but in truth
>this subject should be noted in the normal FAQ concerning reverting to
>the previous version as well.
It's true that installing an old version over a current version isn't a
faux-pas that can happen simply because the "cygwin time machine" is
used, though it's probably more likely to occur (but maybe not... I hope
not! :-) ) The Cygwin FAQ doesn't seem to be the right place for the Cygwin
version of this information though. Maybe the UG is? Joshua, what's your
thoughts on this?
>> Obviously, those who disagree with me are still free to answer the
>> inevitable posts that we'll get here about the "cygwin time machine"
>> anyway. With any luck, those posts will be few and far between so there
>> will be little need to discuss how much noise of this kind is too much.
>
>Oh, come now, Larry. We had a hugh thread going concering the *content*
>of the fortune data files, which was totally off-topic for Cygwin, yet we
>all kept on beating that horse. Off-topic doesn't stop it from being
>discussed anyways. :)
Off-topic things will always be at least attempted here. You and I are
saying the same thing. But just because the reality is that there will
be off-topic discussions in the future does not mean that we shouldn't
discourage them when they occur. Rules are made to be broken or bent.
But if no attempt is ever made to enforce the rules, then why have them?
(I'm hoping that's a rhetorical question! :-) ).
FWIW, I can see that you're taking your responsibility as "cygwin time
machine" maintainer seriously. None of my comments in this thread are
meant to criticize your efforts in this vein.
--
Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746
--
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 -