Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:23:32 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Gee, everyone, thanks for the support
Message-ID: <20020906202332.GA25764@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20020906150721 DOT GA22183 AT redhat DOT com> <1031329271 DOT 9096 DOT 49 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <20020906163701 DOT GL21699 AT redhat DOT com> <3D78E7CA DOT 3047CDAD AT yahoo DOT com> <20020906175250 DOT GA24075 AT redhat DOT com> <3D78FF32 DOT 332B67FD AT yahoo DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3D78FF32.332B67FD@yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:17:06PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 01:37:14PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>> >Perhaps cgf needs to check the MSDN before making changes to the
>> >w32api.  Perhaps cgf needs a vacation.  Perhaps cgf needs to check his
>> >blood pressure.  ...
>> 
>> Ah! The old "cgf needs a vacation" ploy.  It's been a while.
>> 
>> Submitting a patch would have been trivial.  Instead you chose to deal
>> with this as if the cygwin code was something that other people were
>> responsible for.  That may be appropriate for cygwin at cygwin but
>> it really isn't kosher here.
>> 
>
>You choose to put blame elsewhere.  The original problem began with your
>CVS commit.

I am not assigning blame elsewhere.  I screwed up in a couple of places
when adapting Chris's patch.  One of my changes caused cygwin not to
load on Windows 9x.  Big screwup on my part.  When Egor Duda noticed
that he *supplied a patch* to fix my problem.

Do you see how this worked?  Chris submitted something that wasn't quite
right.  I modified it and checked it in.  My modification was wrong so
Egor noticed and fixed it.  You noticed something pedantically incorrect
and fixed it, ignoring the fact that it now breaks cygwin.  There was a
chain here but it got broken.

I was trying to figure out why you didn't just take the extra step of
fixing cygwin when you fixed w32api.  I don't understand why it wasn't
my responsibility to fix w32api since I made the incorrect checkin but
it was my responsiblity to fix cygwin so that it continued to build.  I
am certainly not saying that it wasn't my fault for adding a guard.  I
was thinking that this was just a "Oh yeah, now that you mention it, I
could have done that" type of thing on your part.  It appears that you
have a different philosophy on how this type of issue should be handled.
I guess I understand that now.

Anyway, I think we've extracted about as much as we can from this.  It's
a tempest in a teapot.  It would be inconsistent of me not to ask about
this kind of thing when I've challenged others (jik AT curl DOT com springs to
mind) about similar issues but I guess I consider the matter closed.

cgf