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