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
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 21:24:44 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-Developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: stat(2) wierdness
Message-ID: <20020603012444.GB16877@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-Developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <026901c20a46$245b0ad0$6132bc3e AT BABEL> <20020602163324 DOT GB12502 AT redhat DOT com> <038001c20a7d$2fea7700$6132bc3e AT BABEL> <3CFA941F DOT 9C5C35D7 AT yahoo DOT com> <03b901c20a85$75cb2190$6132bc3e AT BABEL>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <03b901c20a85$75cb2190$6132bc3e@BABEL>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 11:33:03PM +0100, Conrad Scott wrote:
>"Earnie Boyd" <earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com> wrote:
>> I thought that your post met the "Discussions of upcoming net releases
>> are also appropriate" rule but I must have been wrong.  Perhaps stronger
>> attention to "Heads up before net release" or a different subject would
>> have made the post clearer as to your intent.  Suggesting that you're
>> looking for the bug to squash may have also helped.
>
>That was much my thinking really: Chris had said that a new release was on
>its way and so people should flag up problems with it. And in this
>particular case I wasn't about to try and fix it since I knew Chris was
>already working in that area.
>
>Then again, the original "The road to 1.3.11 -- please try the latest
>snapshot" message was posted in the *cygwin* mailing list and not here, so I
>should have stayed there.
>
>This all feels like I'm trying to justify myself so I should stop but then
>again I suppose I felt a bit miffed by Chris's original reply. Perhaps if it
>had read "Thanks for the bug report but . . ." rather than just containing
>that (gentle) reprimand.

Sorry, I did mean to thank you for the bug report.

>Ah well, I see the bug's fixed so all's well that ends well.

Is it fixed?  That's good to hear.

I'm sorry that I took the opportunity to respond to your particular
message.  You'll see that this list has had many such messages in the
past.  I certainly wasn't incensed or anything.  (Now I'm trying to
justify...)

Maybe I'm being overly pedantic.  It's just that I would prefer that
this be a place where we can be pleasantly surprised by in-depth
analysis of problems.

In this case, however, you are perfectly right.  I had been working
on the code in question, so it would have probably been a duplication
in effort for you to look into it.

So, now I've talked myself into believing that my no bug report policy
is silly.  I guess we should play it by ear.  I'd prefer analysis but if
you know that someone is already looking into the problem, there is
obviously no reason to dive very deeply into a problem unless someone
asks you to do so.

cgf