On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 03:30:21PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 03:20:39PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>Perhaps this makes sense as a step in the process but it can't be the >>end-game if folks really want to make the process easier for everyone. >>I'm not against any steps necessary if it improves any part of Cygwin >>but unless the improvement actually folds into the final product >>(Cygwin itself) as Chris points out, various disjointed and >>disconnected solutions will likely lead to more confusion and problems >>in the future. It's worth thinking about for anyone that's taken the >>first step. This stuff can all be helpful. Let's try to get it all in >>one place! :-) > >In this case the information provided could possibly be considered more >confusing than what is already available, too. So, submitting >documentation for review and incorporation would theoretically weed out >the confusing or incorrect parts.
Just to be clear, I'm referring to the information provided on the external web site that is intended to help people with ssh problems. cgf -- Please do not send me personal email with cygwin questions or observations. Use the resources at http://cygwin.com/ . -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
