You take my point A) out of context... I do read the changelog to see what has changed (i.e., the name "changelog"). I don't read it to find what is supposed to be *in* the readme, namely (and identified by the readme Contents):
CONTENTS - INSTALLATION - CONTACT - CREDITS Installation!!!! Please! Argue this point and I may very well poke myself numerous times in the brain with a poorly padded qtip. This portion of the readme was vacant of any installation information. It contained what I bitched about before, a URL to an outdated doc. This section is where "change you rmetamod/plugins.ini...." would belong, if any place. B) actually, that is how I did find that it was wrong. meta list (and most meta mod commands) is not something a lot of admins think about. Why? because meta mod does it's job so well. It is _so_ maintenance free, it doesn't occur to most people that meta mod has any kind of command interface, most admins are busy with command interface with the MM plugins, eg, HLG, AM, AMX, etc. --- Mad Scientist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tony Di Schino said: > > A) I don't read the changelog to see what I need to do to accomodate new > > features > > If you don't read the changelog, then what's the point in patching? You > should only patch for a reason. And the reason is in the changelog... > > > > B) previous version of HLG didnt require that you verify the version. > > You extracted, fired it up and if it didnt crash you were good2go. > > Are you sure it didn't require a verification? How would you know if you > didn't verify? All it takes is a "meta list" to see what version it > reports. Production verification is one of the most fundamental steps in > change management. _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
