On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Doug Tucker <tuckerd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 11:07 -0700, MHR wrote:
>> 1) You're top posting - please stop it. In this email list, we bottom
>> post as a matter of policy and courtesy. It's not that hard....
>
> I'm sorry, that last sentence was unnecessary and just rude. I don't
> tell you how to set your email client and what your preference is toward
> how you like to read your email. I find it completely annoying to have
> to scroll to the bottom of a message to read a reply. I will comply
> with the group as a whole that I chose to join, I was unaware that
> bottom posting was preference. But I do not appreciate the tone, you
> could have easily asked nicely or referred me to the preference policy
> for me to follow.
>
You apparently didn't see the smiley I left out of the last sentence.... :-)
I didn't mean it to be rude at all - no tone implied. I just noticed
that you have posted several times to the list and all of them, until
now, were top posts, unlike almost everyone else. I /was/ trying to
be nice....
> This is a matter of agreeing to disagree on the release of a kernel and
> a supported file system. If you had read my thread and subsequent
> paragraph you're taking issue with properly, you would have gotten that.
> My whole issue is around GFS, which is officially supported (someone
> else hijacked this thread with XFS which got more attention), and in my
> statement I said: "Keep in mind this is not an unsupported XFS that
> someone hijacked my thread with." So I'm agreeing that XFS should never
> be brought up in the same fashion as GFS, as it is not a supported file
> system. GFS is, and it is my opinion RH should release the 2 together.
>
Yes, I've been reading the thread. I you didn't mention GFS in the
specific post to which I was replying, but you're right, it's there in
prior posts. So all of my commentary about XFS does not apply to your
post. Non-sequitur - mea culpa. :-)
> I already agreed and removed kernel from the update, no need to lecture.
It was intended to be a gentle reminder. (You've obviously never seen
me lecture....)
> Again, if you will take the time to read instead of knee-jerking a
> reaction in some automatic defense of your feelings, you will note that
> I took the aim at RedHat for the issue, and said it was not CentOS's
> problem. Read boy, read.
>
<snip>
>
> And unfortunately, all based on improper understanding of what was
> written, which makes it inappropriate in a public forum. Me thinks you
> had seen enough of the other guy whining about his unsupported platform,
> saw the word XFS in my paragraph, and basically quit reading and decided
> to send your XFS rant at me. I hope from a therapeutic standpoint, it
> helped you in some fashion.
>
You seem awfully touchy here - are you sure you're not lecturing me? :-)
Take a breath, relax, you were not under attack, lecture or anything
rude. I meant it with the best of intentions - I usually do.
mhr
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
