Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <015301c30e79$ef222590$78d96f83@pomello>
From: "Max Bowsher" <maxb AT ukf DOT net>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <34212183533 DOT 20030428233632 AT familiehaase DOT de> <013e01c30dda$507a2680$78d96f83 AT pomello> <20030429010100 DOT GA7710 AT redhat DOT com> <004201c30e3c$c9d964c0$78d96f83 AT pomello> <20030429130141 DOT GC11917 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: cannot checkout cygwin
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:05:36 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 11:47:54AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> No, that was me.  I moved the old malloc.cc to malloc_wrapper.cc a while
>>> ago and made a new malloc.cc.  I shouldn't have done that but the damage
>>> is done now.
>>
>> But I can repair it if you like.
>
> I know how to repair it.

I wasn't calling you stupid. I was just volunteering my time for this.

>  This is NOT a recent thing.  There is no way
> that it deserves this much attention.  Did you notice when I first did
> this?

No.

>  How many times have you seen this show up?

Just now.

> Do you really think
> it is worth 7 (now 8) messages on this subject?

Well, not all of those were mine, and I still have something I'd like to say
on the matter.

I agree that it is unlikely that anyone will attempt a date-based checkout
of a year-old Cygwin and try to build it.

I was suggesting that it be fixed, because I don't see any reason to leave
it broken. After all, old metadata isn't considered completely irrelevant -
if it was, sites would make it policy to delete old revisions from CVS after
a certain time had passed.

Now, I acknowledge that this is not a critically important issue, but I also
think that is not trivial enough to not even be worth discussion.

The judgement call is up to you.

Max.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/