On Tuesday 03 February 2009 18:18, Rob Landley wrote: > > > > +#") > > > > endif > > > > > > Do we really want to pollute the code with unexplained workarounds for > > > purely cosmetic bugs in a text editor many of us don't use? > > > > Many of _who_? > > Did you have a bad day? > > Several. > > Busybox includes a vi implementation. It does not include an emacs > implementation. There's also nano and gnotepad and kate and so on. > > Hence a workaround for a bug in emacs seemed worth questioning. > > > Shall we start another flame war and/or text editor investigation? > > Asking whether something is a good idea constitutes a flamewar?
Well, Rob, you are a bit tough at times. Having a bad day explains this. Actually, at the moment my days are not too bright either. Linus once said that internet has plenty of forums just about anything, and if you just HAVE TO grill someone, you can do it there. I, personally, use space.com (readers can post comments to articles there), and the amount of cluelessness there gives me plenty of opportunities! :) ;) > > Let's just forget about all that. > > Your definition of "forget" is "merge the patch, and any future ones like > this > that come along to work around the same bug". > > *shrug* That's what Denys did, and it's his call... Well, actually it was someone else, and I actually agree with you here, this patch is wrong (though harmless), I didn't plan to apply it. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
