Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:33:32 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Bye bye //c?
Message-ID: <20010524143332.A9059@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20010523155947 DOT A13690 AT redhat DOT com> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010523164806 DOT 0164b840 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010523164806.0164b840@pop.ma.ultranet.com>; from lhall@rfk.com on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 04:54:51PM -0400

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 04:54:51PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>At 03:59 PM 5/23/2001, you wrote:
>>I am thinking of taking the drastic step of getting rid of //c?
>
>Yipee! :-)
>
>>Any comments on this?  Should we just make it configurable with
>>a cygwin option:
>>
>>set cygwin=deprecated_drive_access
>>
>>?
>
>Nah.  As long as we're going to get rid of this, which we've said we're 
>going to for years, there's no advantage to this alternative.  It only
>perpetuates an existing problem and it is no more intuitive to the 
>unsuspecting user than the alternative (i.e. the /cygdrive/<drive>) syntax.
>As long as we have to field questions on the list about this, I'd rather the
>response be to "move forward" with /cygdrive/<drive> rather than optionally
>"stay in the past" with the new CYGWIN setting.  This issue of list traffic
>on this subject is "easily" handled by an FAQ entry and a new spear catcher.

I am no fan of adding additional CYGWIN options but I also don't want to
add a severe barrier to people who want to upgrade to a new cygwin
version.  I thought that setting a long CYGWIN option would be a somehat
lower hurdle than getting rid of this stuff entirely but it sounds like
I'm the lone voice on this one.

I guess at the very least, we should have a FAQ entry waiting for this
problem.

cgf