X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:18:18 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Which list should cygwin development be discussed on ?
Message-ID:	<20060630011818.GD2154@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<44A474CE DOT 7090100 AT netbauds DOT net>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<44A474CE.7090100@netbauds.net>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:48:14AM +0100, Darryl Miles wrote:
>Is my more technical discussion better put onto the cygwin-patches list 
>?

No.  The mailing list descriptions really are accurate.  If you don't
have a patch, then you shouldn't be sending email to cygwin-patches.

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 -