Re: Gee, everyone, thanks for the support

[Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd at yahoo dot com>]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:17:06PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 01:37:14PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> >> >Perhaps cgf needs to check the MSDN before making changes to the
> >> >w32api.  Perhaps cgf needs a vacation.  Perhaps cgf needs to check his
> >> >blood pressure.  ...
> >>
> >> Ah! The old "cgf needs a vacation" ploy.  It's been a while.
> >>
> >> Submitting a patch would have been trivial.  Instead you chose to deal
> >> with this as if the cygwin code was something that other people were
> >> responsible for.  That may be appropriate for cygwin at cygwin but
> >> it really isn't kosher here.
> >>
> >
> >You choose to put blame elsewhere.  The original problem began with your
> >CVS commit.
> 
> I am not assigning blame elsewhere.  I screwed up in a couple of places
> when adapting Chris's patch.  One of my changes caused cygwin not to
> load on Windows 9x.  Big screwup on my part.  When Egor Duda noticed
> that he *supplied a patch* to fix my problem.
> 

Well, you hadn't said so 'til now.

> Do you see how this worked?  

Yes.  I now understand your point.

> Chris submitted something that wasn't quite
> right.  I modified it and checked it in.  My modification was wrong so
> Egor noticed and fixed it.  You noticed something pedantically incorrect
> and fixed it, ignoring the fact that it now breaks cygwin.  There was a
> chain here but it got broken.
> 
> I was trying to figure out why you didn't just take the extra step of
> fixing cygwin when you fixed w32api.  

I've not compiled Cygwin for nearly a year.  I didn't change Cygwin, I
corrected the change to the w32api and issued a warning.

> I don't understand why it wasn't
> my responsibility to fix w32api since I made the incorrect checkin but
> it was my responsiblity to fix cygwin so that it continued to build.  

I corrected the w32api just as Egor corrected your other blunder,
because I found the discrepancy.

> I
> am certainly not saying that it wasn't my fault for adding a guard.  I
> was thinking that this was just a "Oh yeah, now that you mention it, I
> could have done that" type of thing on your part.  

And that's all I meant for it to be.

> It appears that you
> have a different philosophy on how this type of issue should be handled.

The only issue I had was to correct the w32api error and then to warn
about proper guarding.  It then became an issue of warding off the
flames while trying to remain cool.

> I guess I understand that now.
> 

I hope so.

> Anyway, I think we've extracted about as much as we can from this.  It's
> a tempest in a teapot.  It would be inconsistent of me not to ask about
> this kind of thing when I've challenged others (jik@curl.com springs to
> mind) about similar issues but I guess I consider the matter closed.
> 

Maybe, not.  I don't plan to check Cygwin just for Cygwin's sake when
such corrections are made to the w32api or to the mingw-runtime.  I'd
never finish if I promised all who used the w32api and mingw-runtime
packages the same service.  For now I'll just bow to the disclaimer in
the license.

Earnie.