On 3/9/2012 1:47 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 9 19:22, Christian Franke wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:43:07AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 8 21:37, Christian Franke wrote:
I'm not so sure this option would make a lot of sense. An option not
used by rebaseall by default won't be used anyway. We should decide
which behaviour makes more sense and then just do it.
Actually, the aforementioned backup scenario implies to me that setting
the timestamp makes more sense. Restoring a broken Cygwin installation
from a backup and then immediately getting rebase problems again, just
because an incremental backup didn't catch the rebased DLLs sounds pretty
frustrating. OTOH, who's doing incremental backup these days?
Corinna
I am. I don't feel like buying a new hard drive or a new disk server
every month
or so in order to preserve all my backups as long as I often need them -
some
problems simply aren't obvious for a few months.
Robert Miles
--
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
