Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:37:19 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: New symlinks Message-ID: <20010301203719.N874@cygbert.vinschen.de> Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E229 AT IIS000> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E229@IIS000>; from Dautrevaux@microprocess.com on Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:35:42PM +0100 My last email related to the symlinks==shortcuts discussion. IMO, the symlink==shortcut is a great new thing. I like them. I don't like them only because I wrote them but I like the way to have a better interoperability with native Windows tools (whichever direction). Nobody of the posters here could convince me that the way I have implemented them is bad or wrong. So I don't see a need to change the implementation. Especially I can't understand why most of the folks see problems which currently not has happened. Did you ever see technological progress when people only fearfully try to avoid any problem which could happen (perhaps)? Please, let's test this for a while first. If this mixes up things too much we can discuss this again or revert the change. We have a loss only if we never try it. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat, Inc. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple