X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 22:46:38 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin Performance and stat() Message-ID: <20100531024638.GA14053@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20100530170747 DOT GA8605 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20100530213935 DOT GA9821 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4C030EB8 DOT 2090502 AT gmail DOT com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C030EB8.2090502@gmail.com> 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 Mon, May 31, 2010 at 02:19:52AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >>On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 05:03:46PM -0400, NightStrike wrote: >>>There's always room for ingenuity and improvements, isn't there? > >On 30/05/2010 22:39, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>If someone is ingenuous enough to make an improvement it's hard to >>believe that they wouldn't be ingenuous enough to send a patch to >>cygwin-patches. > >No, it isn't. (I'm assuming you meant ingenious rather than ingenuous, >because it doesn't make sense the other way.) Yes, I meant ingenious. Let me clarify that *I* find it hard to believe that someone who constructs a Cygwin patch which they want people to know about wouldn't be able to figure out where to send it, especially if they are *reading* *this* *mailing* *list*. >>Or, if they are ingenous enough but just like to lurk in the cygwin >>mailing list so that they can send private email with secret patches >>then I'd have to suspect the quality of the patch itself. > >That's the same-but-opposite as an argument from authority fallacy. No it isn't. Hey this works pretty well! I'll have to remember this technique. I can't believe I'm having a conversation about nonexistent people with nonexistent patches, but my point was that if someone is not confident in making the patch publicly available then it seems very possible that it is not a great patch to begin with. 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. 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