Re: cvs problem

On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, John Summerfield wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>
> > On Monday 01 October 2001 07:33 pm, John Summerfield wrote:
> > > It seems you don't have to be new here to be a bit peeved about things;-(
> > [snip]
> > > Time to get your act together fellas.
> >
> > This is open source John, not rocket science. (pun intended)
> >
> > Lighten up. The release will happen, regardless of minor server issues (that
> > are being worked out right now, even as I write, by highly capable
> > professionals, who, BTW, are doing this on a volunteer basis).
>
> Changing the CVS repository so it doesn't work the same way any more
> isn't smart. Having wrong documentation isn't smart. Taking two weeks
> and NOT fixing a simple problem isn't smart. Giving wrong advice isn't
> smart. Test your advice - where possible I do.
>
> "Lighten up" isn't the right response. Examine your project. See what points
> I make have merit. Welcome criticism. You don't have to like the message you know;-)

Actually, I think "Lighten up" was a reasonable response, given the tone
of the message this was in response to which appears to be what Lamar was
responding to. Besides, there's a far cry from a message of constructive
criticism and the message this was in response to. The point that the
documentation and reality need to match up is a good one, but saying
that "It's wrong because it's different from what worked before" isn't
reasonable. Saying, "This change is unfortunate and did it really have
to happen and why? And the documentation and the server realities really
have to match up. Perhaps changing the page first with a note of both
configurations with an estimated time change for the server would have
been better/the right way to do this" is reasonable.