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. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
