patch for cygpath
Sat Aug 11 18:41:00 GMT 2001
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 06:59:57PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
>Christopher Faylor schrieb am 2001-08-09, 10:45:
>>On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 01:57:53PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
>>>BTW, instead of discussing, which lasts some time, it could have been
>>>approved and committed in the same time.
>>Well, this is a pretty assinine comment. I'm trying to avoid code bloat.
>asinine = idiotisch; dumm
>Thank you cgf.
You're perfectly welcome. If you are going to offer gratuitous
criticisms you can expect my opinions of your criticisms to be
You actually made some good points in your response. They were good enough
that you didn't need to slam anyone with your asinine observation.
>>I don't like to add "features" to programs if they have no real value
>>and slow tools down.
>>I really don't need to have my procedures criticized. Thanks.
>Big Boss, never makes a mistake, no criticism neccesary...
I certainly stated my case too strongly here. I'm certainly open to
criticism if I can discern a modicum of conscious thought behind the
criticism. Sadly, that was lacking in this case.
Would you rather that I just make unilateral decisions rather than
discuss things? My first impulse was to just ignore the patch so
that would not have been to your advantage.
Or would you prefer that if I see a patch that troubles me in some way,
I should just check it in automatically? Maybe that is not a big deal
since patches are so few and far between and cygwin suffers from a
surfeit of opinions over deeds.
Since I had no strong opinion (or actually a slightly negative opinion),
I asked for votes on whether the patch was worthwhile. So far the votes
are 2-1 in favor of the patch. It looks likely that it will be included.
If it isn't being included fast enough to suit you then... Gee, I guess
I just don't care.
More information about the Cygwin-patches