Re: cvs problem

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?

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.

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.