Re: polychords: a working solution

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Graham Percival" <address@hidden>
To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: polychords: a working solution


> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:25:33PM -0000, Phil Holmes wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Percival"
> > <address@hidden>
> > >You have impressive email filters.
> >
> > I think you'll find that one of the volunteers here has been doing a
> > full LSR import whenever it's needed.  Oh.  It's me.  It's not
> > needed every week - I only do it if there are new snippets tagged
> > with docs.
>
> That's true; I was addressing my frustration towards the wrong
> person.  There's a huge amount of work that users take for
> granted, but arguing with you isn't going to help anything.
>
> I apologize.
>
> - Graham

OK.  Thanks.  I know this goes against the grain for you, but it's time for 
a brief look on the bright side.  You're no longer running patchy-staging 
and we have a way forward for that.  Between David, myself and James (once 
he finds an internet) we can have patchy-test sorted out.  People _are_ 
volunteering for other work - Janek and regtests.  Users here for LSR update 
work.  Quite a few of us are trying to run GUB and only failing because of 
build problems - I suspect my problem is the fact I run 64 bit.  IMHO the 
bug squad is running successfully at present.

As you know only too well, we're all volunteers and that makes organisation 
fragile.  But please don't be all doom-and-gloom _all_ the time.

--
Phil Holmes