Cygwin Performance and stat()

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 02:19:52AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 05:03:46PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
>>>There's always room for ingenuity and improvements, isn't there?
>
>On 30/05/2010 22:39, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>If someone is ingenuous enough to make an improvement it's hard to
>>believe that they wouldn't be ingenuous enough to send a patch to
>>cygwin-patches.
>
>No, it isn't.  (I'm assuming you meant ingenious rather than ingenuous,
>because it doesn't make sense the other way.)

Yes, I meant ingenious.

Let me clarify that *I* find it hard to believe that someone who
constructs a Cygwin patch which they want people to know about wouldn't
be able to figure out where to send it, especially if they are *reading*
*this* *mailing* *list*.

>>Or, if they are ingenous enough but just like to lurk in the cygwin
>>mailing list so that they can send private email with secret patches
>>then I'd have to suspect the quality of the patch itself.
>
>That's the same-but-opposite as an argument from authority fallacy.

No it isn't.

Hey this works pretty well!  I'll have to remember this technique.

I can't believe I'm having a conversation about nonexistent people with
nonexistent patches, but my point was that if someone is not confident
in making the patch publicly available then it seems very possible that
it is not a great patch to begin with.

I guess it's possible that someone just doesn't want to go through the
pain of getting the patch accepted.  In that case, everyone enjoy your
private cygwin stat() patches.

cgf

--
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