Extend faq.using to discuss fork failures
Sat Nov 5 18:45:00 GMT 2011
On 04/11/2011 16:44, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 12:22:13PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:34:09PM +0000, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>>> On 03/11/2011 21:05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>> I would still prefer eschewing actively negative words like "hostile" and just
>>>> neutrally stating that Windows does not use a fork/exec model and does not offer
>>>> any easy way to implement fork.
>>> Hmm, yes, I'll fix that.
>>>> I'd also like to see specific errors mentioned so that when people are searching for
>>>> a solution to the problem they will be able to find it in the FAQ.
>>> Is there something wrong with the itemized list which follows that sentence?
>> No, sorry. I'm email challenged at the moment so I missed it.
> Btw, since this is such a glaring omission from the FAQ I think you
> should make the edits that Corinna and I suggested and just check it
> in. We can tweak it as needed when people express confusion.
Ok, checked in with the suggested edits.
More information about the Cygwin-patches