This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: igncr vs text mode mounts, performance vs compatibility
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:27:01 -0400
- Subject: Re: igncr vs text mode mounts, performance vs compatibility
- References: <453EA9C1.firstname.lastname@example.org> <000601c6f7e5$d3f8b0a0$020aa8c0@DFW5RB41> <20061025111732.GD20837@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 09:09:42AM -0400, Jonathan Arnold wrote:
>>Repetitive Observation Count*
>>Someone suggests that the best way to handle the CRLF 3
>>problem is to read the first line but doesn't offer
>>Someone expresses confusion about the reasons for the 3
>>changes to bash.
>>Someone expresses philosophical points of view about 3
>>Cygwin's goals based on their discoveries about bash.
>>Someone generalizes that bash and make decisions were 3
>>Someone notices problems with bash after an upgrade 5
>>but ignores any bash announcements.
>What's the count up to so far? All of the numbers have advance
>I think:-) Or is that :-(
I think only the last one needs to be bumped since the confusion
expressed here about the reasons for the change was a continuation
of the mail which prompted my message.
I think we've had at least one notice of bash problems after an
OTOH, we have just had a clueless "If Cygwin is going to be successful"
message which harkens to the spirit of much of the above.