Re: [SL] upgrade issues...

[Michael H. <mh...@it...>]

 > It's mailing list threads like this that make me start to question...
----------------------------------
At first blush I would agree, but this isn't really normal for  
Dieter.  He may be a bit brief at times but Dieter usually comes  
across as a regular guy running a small business and treating his  
paying customers right.  These few posts sound more like the  
stereotypical programmer-curmudgeon growling at the rest of humanity.
    However, this is the flip side of the great advantage of only  
having to deal with one person, you only have one person to deal  
with!  If they are stressed out in some other part of their life one  
gets the spillover without any context.
    So let's give Dieter the benefit of the doubt and wish him the best.


Thanks,

Michael


On Feb 6, 2008, at 10:11 AM, Roy W Pennington wrote:

> On February 6, 2008, Dieter Simader wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Roy W Pennington wrote:
>>
>>> On February 5, 2008, Dieter Simader wrote:
>>>> duh, Roy, if this error does not happen in the upgrade from  
>>>> 2.6.27-2.8.0
>>>> but it happens in the upgrade 2.8.0-2.8.2 why should it be in  
>>>> the UPGRADE
>>>> docs for 2.6.27-2.8.0 ?
>>>>
>>> But it DOES happen when upgrading from 2.6.27 to 2.8.12
>>
>> Roy, I told you the error happens when you upgrade from 2.8.0-2.8.2
>
> Yes i realized that weh i read the 1st replys  to this thread... as  
> you so eloquently say....DUH.
> but.. from a user stand point you are upgrading in 1 functional  
> step, regardless of what the scripts are doing behind the scene.
>
>> The fact that you are upgrading from 2.6.27 has nothing to do with  
>> the
>> error when it happens. If you were to upgrade to 2.8.0 there is no  
>> such
>> error but because you are continuing with the upgrade to 2.8.12  
>> the error
>> crops up. Do you understand it now?
>
> Yes i understand it.
> My point was it is not intuitive.
>> From a user stand point you are upgrading in 1 functional step,  
>> regardless of what the scripts are doing behind the scene.
> The fantastic upgrade method simplifies the process to 1 simple  
> step, but the docs are set up to assume that the user realizes that  
> the script does it in multiple steps.
> It is not intuitive to read multiple upgrade documents  
> (2.6.27-2.8.0 then 2.8.0-2.8.x etc etc) when from a user standpoint  
> you are seemingly upgrading in 1 step.
>
>>> I never meant to suggest it should be in the 2.6.27-2.8.0 doc
>>
>> Yes, this is what you suggested and are still suggesting, see above.
>
> NO. If you read my last post.... you may see that i am suggesting  
> that there MAY be ANOTHER way to document the process.
> It could be simply creating another doc called '2.6.27-2.8.12  
> upgrade'  or adding it to the faq or in the readme file or whatever...
> My point is the docs are not totally inuitive, and that can lead to  
> otherwise needless questions.
>
>
> Do with that input as you wish.
>
> Roy
>
> FWIW, as a successful, former business owner who will be retiring  
> early to go travel the world on his sailboat....
> I learned long ago, that replying to customers in a seemingly  
> condescending way does little to help improve revenue.
> During the current transition to the new owners, I have suggested  
> that they use SQL-ledger and pay for ongoing support. It's mailing  
> list threads like this that make me start to question my advice to  
> them.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ---
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> sql-ledger-users mailing list
> sql...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users