On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Jim Showalter<j...@jimandlisa.com> wrote: > At the risk of throwing gasoline on a fire... > > I didn't react badly to Rod's original post.
The original post was fine. It was the third post that was inflammatory. > Yes, it could have been > worded more diplomatically, but why so thin-skinned about it? ahhhh! so it *could* have been worded more diplomatically, so it *should* have been worded more diplomatically. The subsequent dialog could have been -- Rod: blah blah Someone else: I take umbrage at that Rod: Sorry, if I came off as disgruntled. I really appreciate all this free software that usually works great. Was frustrated with the snafus I encountered. I hope someone can help me. Someone else: Oh, no problem. Happens to all of us. Let's see now... > He > reported some issues. The response was that they weren't issues. Can > you see how that might be construed as unhelpful? Not at all. DRH's response was matter of fact and looking forward. Pavel responded with 4 very helpful posts. > > As for: > > "You see, the fact is that most people ported their applications from > SQLite2 to SQLite3 back in 2004." > > while that may very well be true, it sure didn't help Rod, did it? > What he asked for was a migration guide (actually, he just asked for > some clarifying language in the documentation). Just because most > people don't need a migration guide because they already ported > doesn't mean that a user who hasn't ported doesn't need a migration > guide. That's arguing from the specific to the general, one of the > classic logical fallicies. Very true. But this free and open software. If a migration guide to fit Rod's specifics doesn't exist, then Rod can ask questions and create one and put it back into public domain so others can benefit. I guess it all boils down to the attitude one displays. No one grudges anyone their moments of venting frustration as long as those displays come with also a wry smile and some self-deprecation. But, DRH already commented on that. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "D. Richard Hipp" <d...@hwaci.com> > To: "General Discussion of SQLite Database" <sqlite-users@sqlite.org> > Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 8:05 AM > Subject: Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 > to -3 > > >> >> On Sep 3, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Rod Dav4is wrote: >> >>> *re applied affinity:* If that is what is meant, then the >>> document >>> should say it, instead of leaving it to the reader's imagination. >>> Since column typing was superfluous in version2, it seems that >>> the >>> version3 adoption of typing, as defined, would perhaps be an >>> upgrade >>> compatibility issue, no? >> >> >> I might be wrong, but I'm guessing you'll find the people here will >> help you more if you take the chip off of your shoulder and ask >> nicely. >> >> You see, the fact is that most people ported their applications from >> SQLite2 to SQLite3 back in 2004. A dare say that most current >> readers >> of this mailing list didn't discover SQLite until after SQLite3 was >> already well established, and hence have no memory of what SQLite2 >> did >> or how it was different from SQLite3. So porting from SQLite2 to >> SQLite3 is not a topic that is a high priority to people here. And >> hence, they tend to respond unsupportively when addressing a >> complaint >> by a user who is clearly miffed that SQLite3 does not work exactly >> the >> way SQLite2 used to work. >> >> I suggest a do-over. >> >> Rod, I suggest you re-register for this mailing list under a >> different >> name, then log on and send a request that is worded something like >> this: >> >> "Hi! I'm porting an older application from SQLite2 to SQLite3 >> and >> am running into a couple of compatibility issues. [explain the two >> problems here.] Can somebody suggest ways of either (1) getting >> SQLite3 to work more like SQLite2 used to work, or (2) how I can >> change my code to work the way SQLite3 expects? Thanks!" >> >> Note that the sample request in the previous paragraph does not >> contain an impatient claim that SQLite3 is broken and needs fixing. >> And in particular, it does not contain such a claim coming from >> someone who does not understand how SQLite3 works. >> >> I think if you try my do-over suggestion you will find the people >> here >> will be nice, friendly, and much, much more helpful. >> >> D. Richard Hipp >> d...@hwaci.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sqlite-users mailing list >> sqlite-users@sqlite.org >> http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@sqlite.org > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > -- Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science ======================================================================= Sent from Madison, WI, United States _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
