On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 18:36 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote: > James Bunnell wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 17:00 +0100, Anne Wilson wrote: > > > On May 22 it was estimated that it would take 3 weeks. Did you really need an > > > update on that? > > > > i only asked. an answer such as what was given here earlier would have > > sufficed. is that so hard? > > But it is the same answer you already had! ok, let's look at this differently. if i were looking for a answer to these things from a standpoint of wanting to help, or pointing out something that may be perceived differently somewhere else such as the 'well they are updating 3-4, why not 5'...how is that to be construed? i think that deserves more than an aggressive response such as what happened on irc. > > Ralph > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20080605/c376d402/attachment-0004.html>