Subject: Re: 3.1 CVS tag question
To: =?UTF-8?B?UHJ6ZW15c8WCYXcgUGF3ZcWCY3p5aw==?= <email@example.com>
From: Johnny Billquist <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/02/2007 14:25:59
Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:00:35 +0200
> Geert Hendrickx <email@example.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 12:42:37PM +0100, Matthias Scheler wrote:
>>>On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 06:19:12AM -0500, J.D. Bronson wrote:
>>>>Or, are these the same?
>>>No. "netbsd-3.1" is NetBSD 3.1.x branch. "netbsd-3-1-base" is the
>>>tag which marks where the "netbsd-3-1" branch was created.
>>No, netbsd-3-1-RELEASE is the base tag for the netbsd-3-1 branch.
> What to say about fresh user without much unix background...
> Excellent example of rocket science where simple sling would suffice.
> Thank you Gentlemen. It's high time to think the NetBSD over.
Why the acid comments?
And what was the problem here? That one person misremembered the nameing
scheme of branches and releases?
Do you think you can do it better?
People quite immediately stepped up to the plate and gave all the
correct information anyone could ever ask for.
I don't bother much with your gripes with documentation and whatnot, but
this comment seemed just so bad and misinformed that I just can't take
Why don't you go and play with (and bother) the Linux people instead?
You're obviously not happy with anything, and want everything done some
other way (I feel like you want it done some way you've seen something
else done, and I'm guessing you're looking at Linux, or something