pwd option to return windows path

[Edward Peschko]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 11:57:41PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 08:39:12PM -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> >Edward Peschko wrote:
> >
> >>The problem is, chris, that I have no way of telling what you will find 
> >>'off-topic' and what you won't. 
> >You could always ask...
> >
> >>One of my gut feels is that you find the whole idea of combining the two 
> >>projects together in any way 'off-topic'. 
> >>
> >No need for gut feelings, I believe he already said it was off topic.
> 
> Since I asked for discussion about merging the two projects to be posted
> here it would be hypocritical of me to say it was off-topic.
> 
> Talking about how great msys tools (sic) are is off-topic.  Generally
> going on about the way mingw works is really pointless and off-topic.

I never said that the msys tools are 'great'. It just seems to be the standard
that people have adhered to for the win32 side of things. My point is that talking 
about merging the two is impossible without considering how mingw works, and 
somehow factoring that into cygwin. 

And since you considered the merger of the two projects on-topic, how can you 
consider talking about mingw as it relates to this goal off-topic?

> At this point, it seems pointless in the extreme to still be complaining
> about how the projects should be merged or how YA utility should be
> MS-DOS aware.  I've never understood why people who receive consistently
> negative reactions to their ideas still shoulder on in the face of
> disapproval.  However, if I blocked people for sending pointless
> messages here, the mailing list would be a wasteland (and maybe I'd have
> to block myself as the first candidate).

maybe then having your 'finger on the button' isn't the right response? 
Maybe tolerance is in order?  maybe letting people voice their opinions 
without a verbal smackdown? And maybe, just maybe my goal is worthwhile and useful?

> As always, the best argument is source code.  If it materializes, it
> will be interesting to see if it 1) shows up in the right mailing list,
> 2) has the proper formatting and changelogs, 3) has the appropriate
> legal assignments, and 4) works correctly.

fair enough. But I consider what you are talking about (aside from #4) dotting the 
i's and crossing the t's. But I do do it. I just don't like having to continually
dot my i's and cross my t's all through the damn development cycle, from discovery
to implementation.

Ed

(ps - please, if you would, talk about things as if I am in the same room. It is 
incredibly inconsiderate to 'talk over' people.)

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/