Subject: Re: wrap up of pipe(2)
To: Charles M. Hannum <email@example.com>
From: David Brownlee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/03/2001 17:55:05
First something vaguely relevant.
I think Darren's patch nicely clarifies the situation to make
it very obvious what to expect form pipe(2). I'd like to see it
Now for the wasted bandwidth...
On 3 Oct 2001, Charles M. Hannum wrote:
> On Wed, 2001-10-03 at 16:26, Darren Reed wrote:
> > In some email I received from a luser, sie wrote
> > > On Wed, 2001-10-03 at 14:10, Darren Reed wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Comments on the the following change for pipe(2) ?
> > >
> > > Bill already took care of this. `Go away.'
> > The person who said that should just have not said anything.
> > There are a million and one other ways you could have said
> > that without being such a rude ass like that.
> Given how much effort you put into deriding people as "lazy" and
> "apathetic", you have *NO* moral ground to stand on.
If you have an issue with something someone does, take it
up when they do it, _not_ when they take the time to do
something helpful like provide a patch. That's a hell of
a way to encourage people to do the right thing.
David/absolute -- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --