On Apr 1, 2013 8:53 PM, "Michael Mol" <mike...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/01/2013 01:06 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > On 1 April 2013 16:32, Philip Webb <purs...@ca.inter.net> wrote:
> >> 130401 Markos Chandras wrote:
> >>> On 1 April 2013 02:56, Philip Webb <purs...@ca.inter.net> wrote:
> >>>> I have sent a msg to gentoo-user describing how to solve this
problem.
> >>>> Perhaps it needs to be mentioned in the news item or wiki entry.
> >>> So you broke the threading on the original email,
> >>> you deleted all the previous content,
> >>> you did not write an appropriate title for your e-mail
> >>> and then you claim you solved a problem
> >>> without mentioning what the problem was.
> >>
> >> Your response is completely out of place & very impolite.
> >> I am trying to help improve Gentoo documentation
> >> & help other users who may face the same problem,
> >> but without taking unnecessary space on the dev-list.
> >> I am not happy with the way the Udev-200 update has been documented,
> >> but I haven't criticised the developer responsible.
> >>
> >> Please take the trouble to read what I sent to the user-list :
> >>
> >
> > Oh but of course. This was more than obvious. Posting something to
> > gentoo-dev just to
> > inform us that you posted something to gentoo-user without even
> > mentioning the title.
> > And then you claim that my reply is out of place. Ok
>
> Is this a good time to point out that list archival is still broken? And
> has been for almost a year?
>
I don't see how this is relevant to this discussion. We are aware of that.
The bug is still open
