Re: cvs problem

On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, John Summerfield wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> How many people use anonymouse CVS? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

Hundreds, maybe ...

> You must have been fixing a pretty serious problem to justify
> inconveniencing them all. And if it really is that serious, add a word
> of explanation (to forestall problem reports) and apology.

Ummm, all of these changes and moves were forewarned ... obvious that was
before you came on the scene with your "in a perfect world" assessments
...

> That is the point of my complaint. If it was just me, I'd shrug my
> shoulders and (once I figured out how) get on with it.

Obviously it is/was only you, cause nobody else appear to give two shakes
...