At 09:26 AM 2/23/2004, Thomas L Roche you wrote: >At 09:38 PM 2/22/2004, Thomas L Roche wrote: >>> Given recent traffic concerning the goodness of rebase'ing, e.g. > >>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01097.html >>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg00899.html > >>> (but occasional breakage, e.g. > >>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01100.html > >>> ) perhaps some treatment of the topic is FAQ- or UG-worthy? > >Larry Hall 02/22/2004 10:49:11 PM: >> I think we can categorize the current problem as a bug. > >The zsh problem, yes > >> Given that this is likely a bug, it doesn't make much sense to >> document it formally in the FAQ or UG. > >I wasn't proposing to document the zsh/rebase bug, but rather the > >* general goodness of rebase > >* specific use of rebase for problem solution (e.g. prior to > full-scale debugging) and general "cygwin hygeine."
Ah, my apologies! Sure, this makes sense. Patch away! :-) -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
