delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2002/04/19/19:07:50

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If one of the functions is obsolete, it should be deleted.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 -


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