Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:47:19 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: gcc-2.95.3 is released. Message-ID: <20010320134719.D32182@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <008701c0b081$1d5085a0$9865fea9@timayum4srqln4> <018901c0b0bb$0e2d8110$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> <006b01c0b0f6$f83a2f20$9865fea9@timayum4srqln4> <20010320091947.I32706@redhat.com> <001101c0b14c$82ade840$9865fea9@timayum4srqln4> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <001101c0b14c$82ade840$9865fea9@timayum4srqln4>; from tprince@computer.org on Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 06:46:02AM -0800 On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 06:46:02AM -0800, Tim Prince wrote: >I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you had any authority to get >those patches accepted. I was contrasting the gcc-2.95.3 stance of no >current cygwin support, and the 3.0 stance of accepting David's patches >when they were perhaps important to other OS. I didn't mean to imply that *you* were implying... Nevermind. We understand each other... :-) I actually didn't know about the "no cygwin support" in 2.95.3. That's sort of odd. I don't know how I missed this. I guess I always assumed that I would just be making my own release, based on Mumit's work in 2.95.2. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple