delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/10/04/18:13:35

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <038a01c14d22$0c3e4980$01000001@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT Com>
References: <20010924183659 DOT B32477 AT redhat DOT com> <0fc101c1454a$aa8b8010$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010924185131 DOT A32613 AT redhat DOT com> <100d01c14550$bd31eaf0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3BBB6ED6 DOT 26A88BE3 AT yahoo DOT com> <03a501c14c58$2e1dc320$01000001 AT lifelesswks> <20011003181839 DOT C3772 AT redhat DOT com> <03f301c14c59$dfb6bd20$01000001 AT lifelesswks> <3BBC4995 DOT CA82EBCA AT yahoo DOT com> <019a01c14cc9$db517250$01000001 AT lifelesswks> <20011004163111 DOT B26858 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: CVS branches RFC
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 08:15:11 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>


> On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 09:43:51PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >Mind you, cygwin HEAD and squid HEAD are run somwhat differently.
The
> >squid HEAD aims to _never_ get broken, whereas cygwin seems to be
> >allowed to be broken - temporarily.
>
> I am, again, lost.  I doubt that anyone purposely checks in known
broken
> code.  If someone is doing this then they should stop doing it.

I didn't mean to imply that you check in broken code! I realise it read
that way - sorry.

> Can I suggest that you just move back to discussing how wonderful the
> scripts are and leave my name out of the discussion?  You are both
> somewhat confused if you think my work should have been done on a
> branch.

I do not think your work *should* have been done on a branch. I was
pointing out to Earnie that the concept of branches for development is
not a panacea - much development work involves tweaks of existing code,
and a branch is pure overkill.

Also, Cygwin is your baby, I have no intention of suggesting you alter
the way the cygwin dev community work on it - the branch scripts where
for my convenience after all - and I really do appreciate your allowing
me to work on a CVS branch.

Rob

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019