[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Current categorization of doubling mistakes (new thread)

From: olivier croisille
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Current categorization of doubling mistakes (new thread)
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 02:40:54 +0200

I do apologize if it sounded as an offence/excessive criticism, it certainly wasn't indended. But that kind of post, I type and send in one go, just as I would speak in return in a passionate discussion. And since I'm totally hooked on BG, my discussions about it usually are passionate.

Plus, at the end of the day, my boss pays me to be efficient, so I should be efficient when posting to gnu.org :-), so I usually skip re-reading.

Plus, as a Frenchman, I certainly have a Latin temper!! which is why I usually have an above-average rate of smileys in my posts, so that people don't take it too seriously :-)))))))))))))))))))

I guess being written, this sounds even harscher than when spoken. How damn do they say "Les paroles volent, les écrits restent" in english, I cannot recall, can someone tell me?

Being totally ignorant of programming, my one and only feeling towards Gnubg programmers is gratitude. So please keep up the brilliant work!


From: Holger <address@hidden>
To: "olivier croisille" <address@hidden>,address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Current categorization of doubling mistakes (new thread)
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 18:21:45 +0200

At 04:17 07.10.2003, olivier croisille wrote:
Why on earth did we change categories in the first place anyway? I do favor change, and obviously improvements take time to implement, but here I cannot see *any* value-added over the former categories that were working sooooo fiiiiiiiine, without any mistake in 2 years+ in categorizing doubling mistakes. In the contrary, I just can see confusion for beginners/intermediate players.

Like Joern pointed out it was the limited classification logic and a bug report by Massimiliano that made me start working on this. See thread "Missed doubles problem ? " starting in August. (e.g.
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnubg/2003-08/msg00632.html and
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnubg/2003-09/msg00112.html )
Btw, at this time nobody opposed to the suggestion, so I implemented it. And I don't really see a problem with it. After all that's what this mailing list is for, discussing solutions. (If the users would only participate in the discussion before it's implemented. I see already the forthcoming complaints that this and this can't be done because some data is missing when someone implements the database feature. No one responded to the survey request for this feature.)



Trouvez l'âme soeur sur MSN Rencontres ! http://g.msn.fr/FR1000/9551

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]