on 4/11/01 7:19 PM, Michael W. Wellman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That having been said: Whoever decided that silently failing was a good
> idea should be taken out back and beaten.
Yeah, and honestly, that is probably be the only issue worth really being
upset over.
The others are obviously personal preferences on the parts of the
programmers of the updater - bear in mind, other updaters do not have these
problems.
> Yet people are naively insisting that the updaters should incorporate
> literally man years worth of programming effort into dealing with these
> kinds of situations! (1)
Not at all, but I was naïve enough to assume that actual planning went into
it before the first lines of code were written. The fact that a README
explains the oversights shows that the updater, and QC on it, were an
afterthought - which I have no problem with, personally, seeing as how the
CONTENT of the update was quite exquisite.
Harry
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
