At 8:55 PM -0500 2/28/02, Nathan J. Williams wrote:
>Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> writes:
>
>>  On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Stephen M Jones wrote:
>>
>>  > There is something I've not seen from everyone else .. isn't 1.5ZA
>>  > considered experimental??
>>
>>  Well, yes, of course. But as I've posted before, there's "experimental,"
>>  and there's "known to be seriously broken." :-) Problems with
>>  drivers and the like I consider to be standard bad luck; it could
>>  happen to any system. It was the known corruption that there was
>>  no notice of in the notes for that snapshot that really annoyed me.
>
>The 1.5ZA snapshot you used was in a subdirectory of the alpha
>snapshots directory called "pending.untested" (You never mentioned
>that).

WHOA!! It most certainly was NOT when I downloaded it. I downloaded 
it back when it was fresh, so I don't know when it was moved there, 
but possibly Curt had already had it locally on his own systems as 
well.

>i.e. you should have assumed that it was even less usable than an
>average snapshot.
>
>For not doing so, and for inflicting the untested snapshot on a
>customer, when there were older snapshots, you are a disgrace.

Down, boy!

Mike
-- 
Bikers don't *DO* taglines.