Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/01/26/20:56:23
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Larry Hall wrote:
> 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.
I've update the document in an attempt to further clarify the position
and intent of the Time Machine and it's relation to the Cygwin project.
> 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?
The UG might be a better place at that. I, myself, never know quite
where a good place for these kinds of things would be.
> >> 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! :-) ).
But that... oh, wait, you said rhetorical... never mind :)
> 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.
None taken. But, if you would like to critic it, please do. I try to
take seriously all comments and suggestions.
> --
> Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com
--
Peter A. Castro <doctor AT fruitbat DOT org> or <Peter DOT Castro AT oracle DOT com>
"Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood
--
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 -