Re: cvs problem

On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:

> On Wednesday 03 October 2001 07:53 pm, John Summerfield wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > On Monday 01 October 2001 07:33 pm, John Summerfield wrote:
> > > > Time to get your act together fellas.
>
> > > This is open source John, not rocket science. (pun intended)
>
> > Hmm. Kids I was at school with were building rockets in their backyards.
> > OSS is similarly a backyard affair. Awhere's the difference;-)
>
> But that's a _hobby_, not 'rocket science' -- and the pun was that there _is_
> a rocket scientist among us.... Lots of us here are doing this as a hobby.

Well, I don't know the backgrounds of the folk here, any more than you know mine;-)

And as far as I can tell, most open-source workers can properly be described as hobbyists.
I know some get paid for their efforts, but not a lot.

> > > 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).
>
> > I appreciate the volunteer point. However, a project in disarray is a
> > project in disarray whether volunteer or not.

Well, remember I only arrived here in the past two weeks. What I've seen has not been
reassuring.

>
> Two weeks of disarray versus 5 years of soloid performance. You'd think a
> couple of weeks of temporary pain wouldn't be a big deal.
>
> > PG isn't perfect - we all know that. Nor is the project administration.
> > When there's a problem identified, someone has to take responsibility for
> > fixing it, and someone has to ensure the person reporting the problem has a
> > way forward.
>
> And the problem is being addressed. Patience is a good watchword.

It's hard to believe there's a serious effort being made to fix a problem when all the effort
I can see has no apparent relationship to the problem.

> > "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;-)
>
> No, I don't have to like the message. But the message can be phrased in a
> more polite way, as has been pointed out. You were just being a little too
> _serious_ about it, that's all. Give it a week or two, and things will be

I don't think I was being rude. It's true I'm no diplomat. I've criticised actions (and,
I think, with considerable justice), but I've not actually criticised people.

We all make mistakes, we should all be ready for them to be pointed out.

> OK. The issues are in Vince and Marc's very capable hands -- but, as Marc
> said, this stuff has lived in the same place for >5 years -- and lots of
> interdependencies had to be addressed. And they _are_being addressed.

And my point is that something moved. Something that many people (I don't know how many,
but thousands wouldn't surprise me) depended on.

I have over thirty years' experience in computing, many of them supporting users. That experiece
tells me that making a change that inconveniences users is a mistake. If the change really must
be made, do it so as to reduce the inconvenience as far as possible.

From my other readinds I see that the PG team controls the entire disk layout. Given that, I can
see no reason that the CVS tree needed to be changed in the way it was.

I still think it should be made to work the old way; both ways, now, as there are people
who depend on both structures.