On Jun 9, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Joe Kelsey wrote:> Jo Rhett has clearly stated (in offline reply) that they do not
> participate in the -BETA and-RC cycles leading up to -RELEASE, so
> they therefore do not have any issues with -RELEASE and EoL to raise.
> Actually, they still have the same complaints to raise about EoL,
> but since they refuse to participate in the -RELEASE process, they
> do not have valid points to raise.
>
> I ask that everyone please stop communicating with the persona known
> on this list as "Jo Rhett" unless and until they participate in
the -
> BETA, -RC, and -RELEASE process. You cannot raise any sort of valid
I'd really like to ignore this post because it would appear Joe Kelsey
is insane (not kidding, read below). But just in case someone
believes this, I have quoted here my entire reply to Joe Kelsey (only
one reply). You'll notice that there is no mention of the release
cycles. It wasn't part of the topic at all.
> Um, no. My post was not titled "I can't upgrade to 6.3" for
a
> reason. The problem is the very limited EoL times set for the
> releases.
>
> And I'm not talking about reading the CVS logs and "assuming"
> anything. I have a customer using the exact same hardware we are
> using who is the reporter of some serious problems with 6.3. They
> were forced to stop rollout of 6.3 because of them. Their untouched
> 6.2 machines continue to run fine. This is why I said "guaranteed
> to fail".
>
> The main problem is the constant release churn. There *were* a lot
> of people willing to invest time/money/machines to provide longer
> EoL for releases. I was asking for information to determine what
> resources were necessary and how to best apply them. (this detail
> is necessary because we were going to put together a proposal to
> take to our respective $EMPLOYERs and get financial support behind
> this)
>
> I suspect your heart is in the right place, but your actual post is
> of the nature of
>
> 1. Take the stated information and resolve it to something else
> 2. Make the stated person sound like an idiot for your own
> interpretation of it
> 3. repeat again and again for a few more paragraphs.
>
> Perhaps you should just once assume that the poster is competent,
> knows exactly what they saying, and means what they say? I didn't
> say "guaranteed to fail" because I had a bad dream about it. I
said
> it because I have a 6.3 system in the test lab showing the exact
> same failure. Why was I not showing the output in this thread?
> BECAUSE THE THREAD WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT POLICY AND SUPPORT
> RESOURCES.
>
> Seriously, next time you find yourself thinking that someone else is
> an idiot, take a step back and try, just try to put yourself in
> their shoes. Try and imagine that this person is competent, and is
> being honest about what they say. And before you ask, I did do this
> when I wrote this message. "I suspect your heart is in the right
> place". I usually believe this in other people, it makes my world a
> happier place to be.
The first time mention of BETA and RC cycles came up was in his reply
to me, which was full of personal insults and attacks like the
following, so I discarded it without reply:
> I see no reason to assume competence on your part since you have
> demonstrated no competence.
...> I don't need to assume anything about you. You have demonstrated
> your idiocy to everyone on the list. Please keep your insane rants
> to yourself in the future.
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
and other randomness