On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 10:33:47AM -0700, Christopher Wingert wrote: >Eric Blake wrote: >> [quit top-posting] > >Now you are my mom too?
"too?" I don't recall any other responses from Eric to you. >> That's where you're wrong. Any patch you write that is technically >> sound and shows a measurable improvement will most likely be accepted. > >Then you shouldn't have Cygwin's front line technical spokesman saying >things such as: > >"If there was a way to make stat() faster why wouldn't it be in the >source code already?" As I've already explained, this was in response to your asking for an existing patch. >"Otherwise, I doubt that anyone outside of the cygwin developers >understands the stat() code well enough to come up with a patch." So far that statement still stands but I'll be very pleased to be proven wrong. >"But providing a variant of stat() along the lines of what you propose >above is not practical for all the reasons already stated." This is not someting that I said. That was actually Larry Hall. >"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." And this was theorizing that there was a patch which was being privately disseminated. It does not in any way speak to a patch being accepted. As long as you're quoting my email you apparently missed or chose to ignore this one: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 05:39:35PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >Otherwise, OF COURSE we'll take improvements to Cygwin if someone >provides them. That's how free software is supposed to work. That was actually a little positive, though. I shouldn't have said "take"; I should have said "consider". 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
