Re: [Bug-grub] Re: an estimated date of 0.90

[OKUJI Yoshinori]

From: Gordon Matzigkeit <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Bug-grub] Re: an estimated date of 0.90
Date: 15 Jun 2001 09:49:01 -0600

> As one of the people involved in the (several) migrations, could you
> explain what was irritating about them?

1. They (including you) didn't ask me about the migration at all,
although it had a both user-visible and developer-visible impact. Why
didn't they confirm what those who were really using the developmental
environment thought about it? If it had been unavoidable, like a
hardware crash, I would have had no complaint. But this case was not.

2. I heard from loic that the GRUB project had been moved to Savannah
suddenly. So I asked him if we would need to change the CVS repository
inevitably, which was the very thing that I wanted to avoid, because I
had written down the location in the manual and README. I, however,
have no reply until now. Thus I had to check if the old location was
still active and if it was the same as the new one actually
myself. That check seemed to be ok, so I concluded that I wouldn't
have to modify the manuals. But this was just experimental, so no
evidence reveals that this is theoretically correct. Is there any good
explanation for why he (or other admins) hasn't given essential
information to GNU developers? My endurance is NOT infinite.

> The cooperative spirit only exists where the work is being done
> cooperatively.  On subversions, only about 3 people were doing the
> work, so the decision to upgrade to Savannah was mostly up to them.

That is not a matter of my anger, as long as that doesn't hinder other
people. Don't forget that system administration needs communications
with users as well as other administrators.

Okuji