Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/05/24/14:59:34
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 04:54:51PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>At 03:59 PM 5/23/2001, you wrote:
>>I am thinking of taking the drastic step of getting rid of //c?
>
>Yipee! :-)
>
>>Any comments on this? Should we just make it configurable with
>>a cygwin option:
>>
>>set cygwin=deprecated_drive_access
>>
>>?
>
>Nah. As long as we're going to get rid of this, which we've said we're
>going to for years, there's no advantage to this alternative. It only
>perpetuates an existing problem and it is no more intuitive to the
>unsuspecting user than the alternative (i.e. the /cygdrive/<drive>) syntax.
>As long as we have to field questions on the list about this, I'd rather the
>response be to "move forward" with /cygdrive/<drive> rather than optionally
>"stay in the past" with the new CYGWIN setting. This issue of list traffic
>on this subject is "easily" handled by an FAQ entry and a new spear catcher.
I am no fan of adding additional CYGWIN options but I also don't want to
add a severe barrier to people who want to upgrade to a new cygwin
version. I thought that setting a long CYGWIN option would be a somehat
lower hurdle than getting rid of this stuff entirely but it sounds like
I'm the lone voice on this one.
I guess at the very least, we should have a FAQ entry waiting for this
problem.
cgf
- Raw text -