X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: "Matt Seitz" <matseitz AT cisco DOT com>
Subject:  Re: status of utf-8 patch
Date:  Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:19:06 -0700
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <f6tn6v$rpu$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:  <3058f9b40707090419w3b475aa1j74396a5dad5aacd9 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <46921D75 DOT 29CE8798 AT dessent DOT net>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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


"Brian Dessent" <brian AT dessent DOT net> wrote in message 
news:46921D75 DOT 29CE8798 AT dessent DOT net...
> Ariel Burbaickij wrote:
>
>> question: what is  the status of utf-8 patch fo cygwin? Is it
>
> You can find all the details in the mailing list archives.
> <http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2006-q3/msg00014.html>
>
>> endorsed/supported?
>
> It was submitted and rejected on technical grounds, which means sadly
> it's not supported here.

The explanation I saw for the rejection was "...it should just be a 
wholesale replacement, not a bunch of wrappers around existing functions."

It's now a year later.  Is there an expectation that the "wholesale 
replacement" or another solution is coming soon?  What would be the harm in 
adopting the current solution for now?  Is this a case of "the perfect is 
the enemy of the good"? 




--
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/