On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:04:56PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>First off, in a followup message, the patch author claims to have received
>a signed acknowledgement from RedHat -- hope this helps.
Actually, it doesn't. I had already read that transaction (obviously?).
Someone claiming to have received something from Red Hat is not really a
legally binding transaction.
>Second, would it make sense to modify the patch to make a third value for
>codepage ("asis" or "none"), instead of making it a modifier? From what I
>understood, there should be no difference between "codepage=oem:con-asis"
>and "codepage=ansi:con-asis", which, in my mind, calls for a separate
>value name...
That occurred to me after I sent the email. I was kind of hoping the
Egor would come to this conclusion.
cgf
--
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/
