X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: ericblake AT comcast DOT net (Eric Blake) To: Christian Franke , cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: [Patch] patch -Z not working if timestamp contains seconds >=59.5 Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 20:31:42 +0000 Message-Id: <051620062031.21802.446A36AE0006DDC10000552A22007348300A050E040D0C079D0A@comcast.net> X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Apr 11 2006) 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 > > 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? When in doubt, enough people read bug-gnu-utils to help out, even if there is a dedicated list for that project. Also, patch is now maintained as part of diffutils, and according to http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/, bug-gnu-utils in this case happens to be the list where diffutils issues are currently discussed. -- Eric Blake -- 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/