OK Peter, clearly you feel strongly about your position and I'm not trying
to change that. I'm not suggesting that people should be force-fed Cygwin
or it's snapshots. I'm not implying that everyone should be using them
all the time. I'm just trying to raise awareness generally of their
existen
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 12:44:18PM -0800, Peter A. Castro wrote:
> >I had though that, perhaps, in a fit of displeasure with my email
> >contents of past, you'd setup a filter specifically to block certain
> >emails from me, but I suppose that's jus
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 12:44:18PM -0800, Peter A. Castro wrote:
>I had though that, perhaps, in a fit of displeasure with my email
>contents of past, you'd setup a filter specifically to block certain
>emails from me, but I suppose that's just paranoid delusion on my part
>:)
You give yourself *w
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Larry Hall wrote:
I have to preface this by saying it's quite long and very OT. If you
have something better to do, like fixing bugs, by all means skip reading
the rest of this.
> At 01:21 PM 2/12/2004, Peter A. Castro you wrote:
> >On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Christopher Faylor wr
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 10:06:15AM -0800, Peter A. Castro wrote:
> >Thanks, Larry, but I've already confirmed the latest snapshot (20040206)
> >fixes the problem.
>
> Did you report the fact that the problem was fixed? I don't see it in
> the archi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:33:41 -0500, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, I say "the current snapshot has problems" and you send email saying
> "the current snapshot has problems".
>
> Doesn't sound like much information is flowing...
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 10:04:15PM +0200, Ehud Karni wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:16:07 -0500, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>There are still problems with the latest snapshot that I hope to have
>>fixed today. We'll see.
>
>Just to let you know that the Emacs problems (inconsis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:16:07 -0500, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There are still problems with the latest snapshot that I hope to have
> fixed today. We'll see.
Just to let you know that the Emacs problems (inconsistent
behavior
At 01:21 PM 2/12/2004, Peter A. Castro you wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 09:44:26AM -0500, Larry Hall wrote:
>> >As I mentioned before, it's better to verify that the current snapshot does
>> >address the problem you're seeing locally. Otherwis
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 01:40:58PM -0500, Larry Hall wrote:
>At 01:06 PM 2/12/2004, Peter A. Castro you wrote:
>>Still, I feel it's best for most regular users to wait for the official
>>release instead of possibly compromising their current environment.
>
>I guess I'd soften that statement by sayi
At 01:06 PM 2/12/2004, Peter A. Castro you wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Larry Hall wrote:
>
>> At 02:03 AM 2/12/2004, Peter A. Castro you wrote:
>> >On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Morris Siegel wrote:
>> >
>> >> My PC is running under Windows XP Professional, and until recently with
>> >> Cygwin-1.5.5-1 and
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 10:06:15AM -0800, Peter A. Castro wrote:
>Thanks, Larry, but I've already confirmed the latest snapshot (20040206)
>fixes the problem.
Did you report the fact that the problem was fixed? I don't see it in
the archives.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 09:44:26AM -0500, Larry Hall wrote:
> >As I mentioned before, it's better to verify that the current snapshot does
> >address the problem you're seeing locally. Otherwise, if you're seeing a
> >variant or something different
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Larry Hall wrote:
> At 02:03 AM 2/12/2004, Peter A. Castro you wrote:
> >On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Morris Siegel wrote:
> >
> >> My PC is running under Windows XP Professional, and until recently with
> >> Cygwin-1.5.5-1 and zsh-4.1.1-1 . I upgraded to Cygwin-1.5.6-1, installing
>
* Peter A. Castro (2004-02-12 08:03 +0100)
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Morris Siegel wrote:
>> My PC is running under Windows XP Professional, and until recently with
>> Cygwin-1.5.5-1 and zsh-4.1.1-1 . I upgraded to Cygwin-1.5.6-1, installing
>> everything available, in particular including zsh-4.1.1-
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 09:44:26AM -0500, Larry Hall wrote:
>As I mentioned before, it's better to verify that the current snapshot does
>address the problem you're seeing locally. Otherwise, if you're seeing a
>variant or something different than the rest, your problem won't be known
>until aft
At 02:03 AM 2/12/2004, Peter A. Castro you wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Morris Siegel wrote:
>
>> My PC is running under Windows XP Professional, and until recently with
>> Cygwin-1.5.5-1 and zsh-4.1.1-1 . I upgraded to Cygwin-1.5.6-1, installing
>> everything available, in particular including zs
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Morris Siegel wrote:
> My PC is running under Windows XP Professional, and until recently with
> Cygwin-1.5.5-1 and zsh-4.1.1-1 . I upgraded to Cygwin-1.5.6-1, installing
> everything available, in particular including zsh-4.1.1-2 . zsh behaved in
> a buggy fashion. I repor
At 05:48 PM 2/11/2004, Morris Siegel you wrote:
>My PC is running under Windows XP Professional, and until recently with
>Cygwin-1.5.5-1 and zsh-4.1.1-1 . I upgraded to Cygwin-1.5.6-1, installing everything
>available, in particular including zsh-4.1.1-2 . zsh behaved in a buggy fashion. I
>r
My PC is running under Windows XP Professional, and until recently with
Cygwin-1.5.5-1 and zsh-4.1.1-1 . I upgraded to Cygwin-1.5.6-1, installing
everything available, in particular including zsh-4.1.1-2 . zsh behaved in
a buggy fashion. I reported it; you kindly replied that similarly proble
20 matches
Mail list logo
