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
In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20040222224326.039df138@127.0.0.1>
To: Cygwin List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: {FAQ, UG} alert? rebase
From: Thomas L Roche <tlroche AT us DOT ibm DOT com>
Message-ID: <OF4CB10607.EE3FED65-ON85256E43.004EF9C0-85256E43.004F5324@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:26:25 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

At 09:38 PM 2/22/2004, Thomas L Roche wrote:
>> Given recent traffic concerning the goodness of rebase'ing, e.g.

>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01097.html
>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg00899.html

>> (but occasional breakage, e.g.

>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01100.html

>> ) perhaps some treatment of the topic is FAQ- or UG-worthy?

Larry Hall 02/22/2004 10:49:11 PM:
> I think we can categorize the current problem as a bug.

The zsh problem, yes

> Given that this is likely a bug, it doesn't make much sense to
> document it formally in the FAQ or UG.

I wasn't proposing to document the zsh/rebase bug, but rather the

* general goodness of rebase

* specific use of rebase for problem solution (e.g. prior to
  full-scale debugging) and general "cygwin hygeine."


--
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/