X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <446A20BF.5080005@t-online.de> Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 20:58:07 +0200 From: Christian Franke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060130 SeaMonkey/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: [Patch] patch -Z not working if timestamp contains seconds >=59.5 References: <054c01c668a4$554924e0$a501a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> <444E95C0 DOT 9080708 AT t-online DOT de> <20060426080858 DOT GA14738 AT sellafield DOT lysator DOT liu DOT se> <1FYg6G-0BFM1o0 AT fwd31 DOT aul DOT t-online DOT de> <20060426100903 DOT GR28583 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> In-Reply-To: <20060426100903.GR28583@calimero.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ID: bpCUQGZaYePiArs-Xf9D78AgNUlmM0zoePfhpZxEvc-WFEidL9cDgV X-TOI-MSGID: 042d4d64-bac0-4fc1-81a8-5a748a15babf X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 Corinna Vinschen wrote: > ... > Would you mind to discuss this on bug-patch AT gnu DOT org? As far > as my opinion counts, I'd think that aligning its behaviour with tar > would be a good thing. But the core developers might have an entirely > different opinion... > bug-patch is not listed at http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/. Sending the report direct to bug-patch AT gnu DOT org, I've seen no observable difference to /dev/null ;-) Is there a more appropriate place to report patch bugs? Christian -- 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/