Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: committers?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 09:13:27 +1000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
Message-ID: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5E85@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>,
   <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g3JNWi812450

It would help if my email parsed.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Collins 
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 8:23 AM
> To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: committers?
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 	I'm confused. You have, on a fairly often basis, 
> lamented the fact that no-one other than you and Corinna 
> seems to take responsibility for reviewing cygwin patches and 
> changes. You seem to be indicating that you want more input 
> into cygwin. Yet when I do just that, on a patch that is 
> certainly not harmful (while maybe not optimal)

(please insert)
 I find I've overstepped the mark..

> .I didn't 
> realise I was overstepping boundaries when I checked it in, 
> so I'd appreciate it if you could restate those so I don't do 
> so in future.
> 
> >If one of the functions is obsolete, it should be deleted.  
> That means 
> >that the patch does *not* look good.  It needs to be reviewed.
> 
> Fine, back it out (as you did). That's not a big deal. Just 
> to be clear: I'm not upset that the patch was reverted, 
> simply confused.
> 
> Rob
> 
>