This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH]Reduce messages in setup.log
- From: "Michael A Chase" <mchase at ix dot netcom dot com>
- To: <cygwin-patches at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 20:41:50 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH]Reduce messages in setup.log
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Collins" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 20:25
Subject: Re: [PATCH]Reduce messages in setup.log
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Faylor" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 3:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH]Reduce messages in setup.log
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 08:00:36PM -0800, Michael A Chase wrote:
> > I don't know how Robert prefers this, but it is customary to provide a
> > single patch file not a bunch of separate attachments. With one patch
> > file you can just say
> Yes please, one patch is nicer.
Sorry. I got confused and thought it was the other way around.
What about the compress_gz.error() and compress_bz.error() messages. The gz
one is commented out and the bz one isn't. Should they be the same? If so,
which is preferred? I lean toward writing both as long as they are going to
** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. **
Ask Smarter: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.htm
Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day.
Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.