Subject: Re: Corrupted 20011221-1.5ZA Snapshot
To: Nathan J. Williams <email@example.com>
From: Michael G. Schabert <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/01/2002 01:03:41
At 8:55 PM -0500 2/28/02, Nathan J. Williams wrote:
>Curt Sampson <email@example.com> 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
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
>i.e. you should have assumed that it was even less usable than an
>For not doing so, and for inflicting the untested snapshot on a
>customer, when there were older snapshots, you are a disgrace.
Bikers don't *DO* taglines.