X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4C030EB8.2090502@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 02:19:52 +0100 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Cygwin Performance and stat() References: <20100530170747.GA8605@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20100530213935.GA9821@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: <20100530213935.GA9821@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On 30/05/2010 22:39, Christopher Faylor wrote: > If someone > is ingenuous enough to make an improvement it's hard to believe that > they wouldn't be ingenuous enough to send a patch to cygwin-patches. No, it isn't. (I'm assuming you meant ingenious rather than ingenuous, because it doesn't make sense the other way.) > Or, if they are ingenous enough but just like to lurk in the cygwin > mailing list so that they can send private email with secret patches > then I'd have to suspect the quality of the patch itself. That's the same-but-opposite as an argument from authority fallacy. cheers, DaveK -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple