On Feb 13 16:27, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > The new behaviour makes more sense, actually.
> >
> > Pushed!
> >
> > Would you mind to send a patch with a release message we can add
> > to release/3.6.0?
>
>
> Sent. I also documented
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> The new behaviour makes more sense, actually.
>
> Pushed!
>
> Would you mind to send a patch with a release message we can add
> to release/3.6.0?
Sent. I also documented my other patches that only seem to be on the
master branch (ie, not backporte
On Feb 13 10:08, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13 15:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> > > I think this looks good, including patch 3.
> >
> > To wit:
> >
> > $ mount | grep drvmount
> > C:/drvmount on /mnt/c/drvmount type nt
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 13 15:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > I think this looks good, including patch 3.
>
> To wit:
>
> $ mount | grep drvmount
> C:/drvmount on /mnt/c/drvmount type ntfs (binary,posix=0,noumount,auto)
> $ mount C:/drvmount /home/corinna/drv
On Feb 13 15:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 12 17:37, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> > >
> > > > It was *supposed* to not return the second one. Ma
On Feb 12 17:37, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> >
> > > It was *supposed* to not return the second one. Maybe I broke it when
> > > trying to break out of the
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
>
> > It was *supposed* to not return the second one. Maybe I broke it when
> > trying to break out of the loop early... I will test this scenario and
> > see why it doesn't
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> It was *supposed* to not return the second one. Maybe I broke it when
> trying to break out of the loop early... I will test this scenario and
> see why it doesn't work as expected.
Yeah, I never actually looked at how posix_sorted w
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> your patch is basically fine, and I was about to push it, when I
> realized that I don't quite understand this:
>
> What exactly is de-duplicated here?
>
> I have a drive mounted under C:\drvmount.
> I create an additional mount entry:
Hi Jeremy,
your patch is basically fine, and I was about to push it, when I
realized that I don't quite understand this:
On Feb 12 10:56, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> struct mntent *
> mount_info::getmntent (int x)
> {
>if (x < 0 || x >= nmounts)
> -return cygdrive_getmnten
10 matches
Mail list logo
