Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/06/04/14:21:05
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 10:33:47AM -0700, Christopher Wingert wrote:
>Eric Blake wrote:
>> [quit top-posting]
>
>Now you are my mom too?
"too?" I don't recall any other responses from Eric to you.
>> That's where you're wrong. Any patch you write that is technically
>> sound and shows a measurable improvement will most likely be accepted.
>
>Then you shouldn't have Cygwin's front line technical spokesman saying
>things such as:
>
>"If there was a way to make stat() faster why wouldn't it be in the
>source code already?"
As I've already explained, this was in response to your asking for an
existing patch.
>"Otherwise, I doubt that anyone outside of the cygwin developers
>understands the stat() code well enough to come up with a patch."
So far that statement still stands but I'll be very pleased to be
proven wrong.
>"But providing a variant of stat() along the lines of what you propose
>above is not practical for all the reasons already stated."
This is not someting that I said. That was actually Larry Hall.
>"I guess it's possible that someone just doesn't want to go through the
>pain of getting the patch accepted. In that case, everyone enjoy your
>private cygwin stat() patches."
And this was theorizing that there was a patch which was being privately
disseminated. It does not in any way speak to a patch being accepted.
As long as you're quoting my email you apparently missed or chose to
ignore this one:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 05:39:35PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>Otherwise, OF COURSE we'll take improvements to Cygwin if someone
>provides them. That's how free software is supposed to work.
That was actually a little positive, though. I shouldn't have said
"take"; I should have said "consider".
cgf
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -