no ... *really* ... any ETA for updated beta?
Robert P. J. Day
rpjday at mindspring.com
Fri Aug 29 23:21:36 UTC 2003
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, William F. Acker WB2FLW +1-303-722-7209 wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> >
> >no, mike, we don't "become upset and rant and rave." we post
> >a simple question, asking if there *is* any ETA for the next
> >beta. which is a perfectly reasonable question, particularly
> >when a specific release date has already been advertised.
> >
> >see the difference?
> >
>
> The difference is that asking it every day to get an answer of 'not yet,
> we are still working on it.' is annoying and after a while abusive. It
> also gets you added to kill files.
well, let's see here. give that my pine sent-mail folder shows that i
asked about this on exactly two occasions this month:
1) mon, aug 11, making it clear that i was *not* asking when the
next beta would be out, but more specifically if i was
remembering correctly that there had in fact been an advertised ETA,
and
2) tue, aug 25, asking about an ETA since the clearly-advertised ETA
was in fact days passed (making such a query eminently reasonable,
IMHO),
we can quickly conclude two things:
a) i most certainly have *not* been asking every day (and i'm not
responsible for others' posts in this thread), and
b) you're a jerk for suggesting i did, and i'd be just pleased as
punch to be in your kill file. file away.
it's been a long, tiring week, and i just have no patience for
snotty, patronizing condescension at the moment.
rday
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list