Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Reply-To: Cygwin List Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040223141834.03a1ce48@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:19:50 -0500 To: Thomas L Roche , Cygwin List From: Larry Hall Subject: Re: {FAQ, UG} alert? rebase In-Reply-To: References: <6 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20040222224326 DOT 039df138 AT 127 DOT 0 DOT 0 DOT 1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:26 AM 2/23/2004, Thomas L Roche you wrote: >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." Ah, my apologies! Sure, this makes sense. Patch away! :-) -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 -- 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/