X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_40,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Cygwin Performance and stat()
References: <20100605052429 DOT GA4801 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <b8832ccca61b1d5a1e3dba6d087b3a5b DOT squirrel AT www DOT webmail DOT wingert DOT org> <20100605190055 DOT GB13928 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <04283c099c3e756b9b4ae85306882b11 DOT squirrel AT www DOT webmail DOT wingert DOT org>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:12:36 +0200
Cc: "Christopher Wingert" <mailbox AT wingert DOT org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "Matthias Andree" <matthias DOT andree AT gmx DOT de>
Message-ID: <op.vdwfzak61e62zd@merlin.emma.line.org>
In-Reply-To: <04283c099c3e756b9b4ae85306882b11.squirrel@www.webmail.wingert.org>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.53 (Linux)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT 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

Am 06.06.2010, 01:16 Uhr, schrieb Christopher Wingert:

>> I do think out loud with my "team".  You are not on it.
>
> Agreed!  You would rather spend your time ridiculing any possible  
> solution.

If only there had been a solution, rather than a loose collection of names  
(I wouldn't even dare call that ideas) dropped where the Cygwin  
maintainers - likely based on prior experience - couldn't see how it could  
have provided all mandatory fields for a POSIX compliant (and no less!)  
f?stat().

> This is what lead to my initial reluctance to do any patch for Cygwin
> software.

<sarcasm>
A nice way to express that your patch would not stand scrutiny against  
POSIX anyways.
</sarcasm>

But seriously, Christopher Faylor has been trying to get to a technical  
discussion, where you avoided his arguments and produced new names of way  
to solve things again, so let me say this:

If you think your post makes you a member of some core team, then you're  
expecting too much. And this isn't specific to Cygwin.  You need to build  
trust, and that is not achieved by bitching at people and their products,  
but by answering technical concerns.

Meaning that: even if I'm only a Cygwin user, and I'm sometimes  
disappointed by how slow it is, too, I'm sort of convinced there isn't a  
cheaper way to get all the required information.


And I for one can configure my virus scanner to scan on write or  
execution, rather than on every read.  I can also configure which types of  
files it's going to scan.  For starters, you might try that...

-- 
Matthias Andree

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple