Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:01:14 +1000 (EST) From: jason andrade <jason@dstc.edu.au> To: Murray Stokely <murray@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: hubs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How many sites have all of the i386 DP1 bits? Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.20.0204081340190.4244-100000@azure.dstc.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <20020408033853.GD8008@freebsdmall.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Murray Stokely wrote: > Your previous complaints were taken seriously and addressed. You > complained that the 4.4-RELEASE announcement went out before even > ftp.freebsd.org had all of the bits. I have actively ensured that did > not happen for 4.5 or 5.0-DP1. and i appreciate those efforts. the freebsd release system has become a much better place since you've been talking to the hubs and the current system is orders of magnitude better in providing a coherent mirror release system to getting freebsd out to mirrors and thereby end users. > Part of the communication problem is that you continue to show such > cynicism (even about such incredibly minor details), without even well fer chrissake, i'm a mirror admin. i'm going to be nitpicky about stuff if i think it'll cause me extra work or differs from (vaguely documented) release structures. > acknowledging the fact that to date we have addressed each one of your > concerns. You can continue to send complaints and suggestions > directly to me or the re@FreeBSD.org address, but your voice will be > heard much better if you work on your communication style. As it i will take this onboard and attempt not to be such a sourpuss in future :-) (though i still want to get some stuff off my chest about the 5.0 DP release here) > stands now, I have no idea what your complaints are, because all I > hear from you are vague snide remarks. On those rare occasions when > you've mentioned something specific, we have addressed it. put it down to some years of frustation in getting anything done in this forum. apologies if it seems like all i do is complain, but yes, i do dislike what i see as arbitary changes because it causes me extra work. so for the 5.0 example, yes, it's "only" 2 images. which is one more than any release before 4.4 and three less than 4.5. so thats the system? if a release "that is not a full release" and has 1 or more iso images but less than 5, it will get dropped into the main ISO tree instead of its own tree ? c'mon. so specifically for the next DP release can we get a 5.0 directory and put iso images into it like 4.5 and 4.4 before it. regards, -jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hubs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.4.20.0204081340190.4244-100000>