From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15145 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2006 02:41:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 15138 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Aug 2006 02:41:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net (HELO mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net) (204.127.131.117) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 02:41:17 +0000 Received: from dfw5rb41 (h-68-165-190-169.chcgilgm.dynamic.covad.net[68.165.190.169]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc13) with SMTP id <20060822024115113005s01te>; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 02:41:15 +0000 From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" To: "'The Cygwin-Talk Make List'" Subject: Well thank God that's sorted. (was: RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 02:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: <000c01c6c594$6ff70850$020aa8c0@DFW5RB41> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <20060821205858.GB31847@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List X-SW-Source: 2006-q3/txt/msg00281.txt.bz2 [TLTTTTTLLLLLLLL'ing this to the proper list, unlike anybody else involved in the discussion] > From: Christopher Faylor > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 3:59 PM > Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81 > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 04:40:03PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote: > >My suggestion was, to send notice of the coming change before the > >change was made, not after. That is all. IMO, the make > issue is over. > >I was just trying to make a suggestion to avoid flame wars > like this in > >the future. I don't think it is enjoyable or productive for anyone > >involved. > > I guess I can't get away without responding to this. > It's unclear why you would think you'd have to, but let's see what you got. > It is very odd to me that someone who wandered into the > discussion late and is still asking for clarification about > what happened (in the > make-w32 mailing list) ??? I don't follow, Chris (and, please, feel free to insert your obligitory passive-aggressive dig here). Bill went over your head to that list and got his changes applied upstream, while you and Korns were on this list acting like fools (http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2006-q3/msg00235.html et al). I don't see any messages on make-w32 from Bill "asking for clarification" about anything other than some apparently perhipheral technical issues. What I do see is you behaving decidedly better on a list which you don't have any control over. > would feel empowered to suggest that > earlier communication would have helped. However: > > 1) I thought (and still do think) that MinGW make was an acceptable > solution for people who use only MS-DOS paths. > Well, I think we're all glad that you feel empowered to think that, but it seems that the preponderance of the evidence, and the opinion of the upstream maintainers, is not in agreement with that empowerment. > 2) The notion that the Cygwin user community would have done something > proactive and submitted a patch upstream is obviously false. > > a) You wouldn't have done it since you weren't paying attention. ??? He did do it, even without "paying attention", and despite your best efforts to browbeat him into not doing it. > b) No one who has responded for the last month has shown any > inclination towards doing anything proactive like that. > ...except of course for Mr. Hoffman (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/make-w32/2006-08/msg00018.html). Really Chris, I understand your sour grapes to a certain extent here, but sheesh, at least proof-read your vituperation for factual correctness. -- Gary R. Van Sickle