{FAQ, UG} alert? rebase

Mon Feb 23 19:43:00 GMT 2004

At 09:26 AM 2/23/2004, Thomas L Roche you wrote:
>At 09:38 PM 2/22/2004, Thomas L Roche wrote:
>>> Given recent traffic concerning the goodness of rebase'ing, e.g.
>>>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01097.html
>>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg00899.html
>>>> (but occasional breakage, e.g.
>>>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01100.html
>>>> ) perhaps some treatment of the topic is FAQ- or UG-worthy?
>>Larry Hall 02/22/2004 10:49:11 PM:
>> I think we can categorize the current problem as a bug.
>>The zsh problem, yes
>>> Given that this is likely a bug, it doesn't make much sense to
>> document it formally in the FAQ or UG.
>>I wasn't proposing to document the zsh/rebase bug, but rather the
>>* general goodness of rebase
>>* specific use of rebase for problem solution (e.g. prior to
> full-scale debugging) and general "cygwin hygeine."

Ah, my apologies! Sure, this makes sense. Patch away! :-)
--
Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746 
--
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/