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: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:19:52 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Cygwin: Open or Closed System? (was: two problems with cygwin's zip) Message-ID: <20010627131952.A22764@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <993648794.12881.ezmlm@sources.redhat.com> <3B39F797.7000608@gruntose.com> <20010627131157.C22088@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <20010627131157.C22088@redhat.com>; from cgf@redhat.com on Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 01:11:57PM -0400 On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 01:11:57PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>i'm satisfied for now that the polarization against win32 wildcards is >>such that only a patch which can be analyzed would even have a chance >>of changing any opinions. expect that the issue may re-arise and >>include some code for consideration in a month or two. > >I'm sorry that that statement caused you to feel that way. It was >a very poor choice of language on my part. Hah! Poor reading skills strike again. I didn't fully parse your words above. You are 100% correct. A patch is without a doubt the most persuasive argument you can offer. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/