Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Debugging new user induction

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Collins <address@hidden> writes:

    Robert> I think the apparent ease with which apparently
    Robert> intelligent folk can get sidetracked down largely
    Robert> irrelevant paths, trying to 'fix' what the old timers here
    Robert> consider 'already fixed' is a bug.

s/apparently intelligent/intelligent/

Getting sidetracked down largely irrelevant paths is a good definition
of "creative".  And it takes _lot_ of intelligence to get so
embarrassingly far down such paths before running into a fish slap.  :-)

It just takes some time to redirect the creativity/intelligence.

    Robert> Offer cold-fish slapping by the geographically nearest
    Robert> arch user?

The old-timers should make an exception to the rule that one should
never quote more than one writes, quote the whole thing, and end with
a lone, knowing

    Here we go again :-)

provide a ML archive URL, and killfile the thread.  If the old-timers
really know better, they should take responsibility for ending the
thread, by not responding repeatedly to the same content.  Note: this
is what Tom is now doing.

This doesn't work very well, but it's better than what's been happening.

    Robert> A special FAQ on "So you think arch is broken, and *you*
    Robert> know the solution." ?

This is a really good suggestion, if by that you mean the section of
the Wiki that contains "The Revision Control Parables of Tom Lord".

One of the problems is that the old-timer wisdom is not codified in
the documentation anywhere.  For example, if this FAQ existed, then
you could greatly improve the above procedure with

    Here we go again!  See FAQ x.y.z.  :-)

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.