From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1433 invoked by alias); 15 May 2002 11:24:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1408 invoked from network); 15 May 2002 11:24:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 May 2002 11:24:29 -0000 Received: from nile.gnat.com ([205.232.38.5]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 177wtR-0002DC-00 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 07:24:29 -0400 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id 75736F2942; Wed, 15 May 2002 07:24:28 -0400 (EDT) To: gcc@gnu.org, klausberger@email.com Subject: Re: your gcc 3.1 release date is a joke Message-Id: <20020515112428.75736F2942@nile.gnat.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 05:16:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg01107.txt.bz2 > please allow me to write exactly this lines to you. i know you are > all doing a nice job on gcc 3.1 but i feel fooled by your gcc maintainer > a lot of date shifts 14th april to 1st may then it was said to be > released in the next days, last weekend mark mitchell said that he is > doing the packages after weekend and now we have wednesday. either you > are fooling us or you are doing this to get time to fix other shit. > either you fucking hell release that damn gcc 3.1 that i am waiting > for - for over a month now that i really like to have or if the work > is to hard for you (like life of a maintainer beeing hard) then hand > over the work to someone else who is capable to NOT pissoff their > people. Messages like this remind me of an incident in my theater group a few years ago. We gave a way some tickets, and one lady came to complain about her ticket. "It's too far away, I can't see" "Well madam, I'm sorry, but this is a free ticket and that's the best available" "I'm not complaining about the price, the price is satisfactory, but the location is not" :-) It's always amazing how people expect *someone* *somewhere* to do things for them on the net without expecting to contribute $$$ or effort in return. Once I had an angry call from some company that they could not find Y2K compliance information for some port of GNAT they had got from somewhere on the net. I explained that we could not provide any kind of statement since we did not support that version and did not even know what he had. He was furious "Well then who *CAN* give me a Y2K compliance statement for this product. I have to have one. It's outrageous that you won't stand behind your product ...." Oh well, all part of the day-to-day fun in Free Software open development. Perhaps we should appoint klausberger in charge of fixing the remaining problems, and demand that he do it by say, 5pm tomorrow evening or else :-)