Well thank God that's sorted. (was: RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81)

["Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>]

[TLTTTTTLLLLLLLL'ing this to the proper list, unlike anybody else involved
in the discussion]

> From: Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 3:59 PM
> Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
> 
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 04:40:03PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> >My suggestion was, to send notice of the coming change before the 
> >change was made, not after.  That is all.  IMO, the make 
> issue is over.
> >I was just trying to make a suggestion to avoid flame wars 
> like this in 
> >the future.  I don't think it is enjoyable or productive for anyone 
> >involved.
> 
> I guess I can't get away without responding to this.
> 

It's unclear why you would think you'd have to, but let's see what you got.

> It is very odd to me that someone who wandered into the 
> discussion late and is still asking for clarification about 
> what happened (in the
> make-w32 mailing list)

???  I don't follow, Chris (and, please, feel free to insert your obligitory
passive-aggressive dig here).  Bill went over your head to that list and got
his changes applied upstream, while you and Korns were on this list acting
like fools (http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2006-q3/msg00235.html et al).
I don't see any messages on make-w32 from Bill "asking for clarification"
about anything other than some apparently perhipheral technical issues.
What I do see is you behaving decidedly better on a list which you don't
have any control over.

> would feel empowered to suggest that 
> earlier communication would have helped.  However:
> 
> 1) I thought (and still do think) that MinGW make was an acceptable
>    solution for people who use only MS-DOS paths.
> 

Well, I think we're all glad that you feel empowered to think that, but it
seems that the preponderance of the evidence, and the opinion of the
upstream maintainers, is not in agreement with that empowerment.

> 2) The notion that the Cygwin user community would have done something
>    proactive and submitted a patch upstream is obviously false. 
> 
>   a) You wouldn't have done it since you weren't paying attention.

???  He did do it, even without "paying attention", and despite your best
efforts to browbeat him into not doing it.

>   b) No one who has responded for the last month has shown any
>      inclination towards doing anything proactive like that.
> 

...except of course for Mr. Hoffman
(http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/make-w32/2006-08/msg00018.html).

Really Chris, I understand your sour grapes to a certain extent here, but
sheesh, at least proof-read your vituperation for factual correctness.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle