Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
content-class:	urn:content-classes:message
Subject:	committers?
MIME-Version:	1.0
Date:	Sat, 20 Apr 2002 08:22:33 +1000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
Message-ID:	<FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5E82@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	<cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g3JN7nT10021

Chris,
	I'm confused. You have, on a fairly often basis, lamented the
fact that no-one other than you and Corinna seems to take responsibility
for reviewing cygwin patches and changes. You seem to be indicating that
you want more input into cygwin. Yet when I do just that, on a patch
that is certainly not harmful (while maybe not optimal). I didn't
realise I was overstepping boundaries when I checked it in, so I'd
appreciate it if you could restate those so I don't do so in future.

>If one of the functions is obsolete, it should be deleted.  That means
>that the patch does *not* look good.  It needs to be reviewed.

Fine, back it out (as you did). That's not a big deal. Just to be clear:
I'm not upset that the patch was reverted, simply confused.

Rob

- Raw text -