On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 05:59:53PM +0000, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote: >> The whole POINT of this thread was that we want patches. > >You've just killed that point, alright. The change I was about, was >merely a word-long (another keyword to be added), the discussion that >sparkled was just despicable.
You are the guy who called my spam blocking software "stupid" so I don't think your high ground is that elevated. >The response was so earful, with profanities and teaching me (?) legal I apologize for the implied profanity. I very rarely go there but I do find the confusion around these discussions pretty frustrating. That is not an excuse though. I shouldn't have done it. It is likely hard to put yourself in the shoes of developers running a project but if we don't push back on people sending "suggestions" we end up with a mailing list full of suggestions with people who expect that their suggestions will be carried out. It is a little known fact that one of Corinna's early messages was actually a suggestion. I suggested to *her* that a patch would be considered. She took that as a challenge and provided a patch. Apparently Corinna is quite unique (we all know that now), at least as far as the Cygwin ecosphere is concerned. >Please spare yourself time responding to the above, I'm not going to >read it. Good luck in your future endeavors. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
