On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 12:38 -0700, MHR wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Doug Tucker tuckerd@engr.smu.edu wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 11:07 -0700, MHR wrote:
- 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....
"It's not that hard" would have gotten you b**ch slapped even with a smile on your face in person. Just stick to polite, it's not that hard :D.
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....)
touche!
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.
Bad thing about email, it's hard to grasp tongue in cheek humor and tone isn't it? Didn't you see my <bfg> at the end of my response?
Do you honestly, like having to scroll down with the rolly thing on your mouse 9 times to get to the reply only to find it is not something you cared to read? I say toss it at the top in my face where I can ignore it with less effort.
:D BFG!
mhr _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos