Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <3D7961B3.B11445B3@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 22:17:23 -0400 From: Earnie Boyd Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Gee, everyone, thanks for the support 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> <20020906202332 DOT GA25764 AT redhat DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christopher Faylor wrote: > > 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. > Well, you hadn't said so 'til now. > Do you see how this worked? Yes. I now understand your point. > 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've not compiled Cygwin for nearly a year. I didn't change Cygwin, I corrected the change to the w32api and issued a warning. > 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 corrected the w32api just as Egor corrected your other blunder, because I found the discrepancy. > 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. And that's all I meant for it to be. > It appears that you > have a different philosophy on how this type of issue should be handled. The only issue I had was to correct the w32api error and then to warn about proper guarding. It then became an issue of warding off the flames while trying to remain cool. > I guess I understand that now. > I hope so. > 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. > Maybe, not. I don't plan to check Cygwin just for Cygwin's sake when such corrections are made to the w32api or to the mingw-runtime. I'd never finish if I promised all who used the w32api and mingw-runtime packages the same service. For now I'll just bow to the disclaimer in the license. Earnie.