X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:52:40 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin 1.7: Concurrency Issue with Shared State Initialization Message-ID: <20100316145240.GB18069@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:53:06AM +0100, Schmidt, Oliver wrote: >>>Please find attached the requested information. However I had to edit >>>it - as carefully as possible - to omit hints on the SAP-internal IT >>>infrastructure. > >>Thanks. It would be nice if we could come up with some way to make >>cygcheck not output sensitive information but I doubt that there's any >>foolproof heuristic that we could use and, if we added an option, people >>might trust it unduly. > >My remark wasn't meant at all as criticism. I rather wanted to apologize >for not fully following the instructions - which I understood to say to >attach the output straight as-is. I was just making an observation. I wasn't interpreting this as a criticism. 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