X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Matt Seitz" <matseitz AT cisco DOT com>
Subject:	Re: status of utf-8 patch
Date:	Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:19:06 -0700
Lines:	24
Message-ID:	<f6tn6v$rpu$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:	<3058f9b40707090419w3b475aa1j74396a5dad5aacd9 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <46921D75 DOT 29CE8798 AT dessent DOT net>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.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

"Brian Dessent" <brian AT dessent DOT net> wrote in message 
news:46921D75 DOT 29CE8798 AT dessent DOT net...
> Ariel Burbaickij wrote:
>
>> question: what is  the status of utf-8 patch fo cygwin? Is it
>
> You can find all the details in the mailing list archives.
> <http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2006-q3/msg00014.html>
>
>> endorsed/supported?
>
> It was submitted and rejected on technical grounds, which means sadly
> it's not supported here.

The explanation I saw for the rejection was "...it should just be a 
wholesale replacement, not a bunch of wrappers around existing functions."

It's now a year later.  Is there an expectation that the "wholesale 
replacement" or another solution is coming soon?  What would be the harm in 
adopting the current solution for now?  Is this a case of "the perfect is 
the enemy of the good"? 




--
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 -