[mythtv-users] Recording storage suggestions

[Phill Wiggin]

On 5/24/07, Michael T. Dean <mtdean at thirdcontact.com> wrote:
> By "leaching" I was referring to users who set it up and send a bunch of
> messages to the -dev and/or -users lists asking questions that were
> specifically answered in previous -commits or -dev threads (i.e. when
> the feature was developed/added).  There are a lot of messages asking
> questions about works in progress or known bugs or whatever that don't
> contribute to solving them, but only waste the time of the person who's
> kind enough to reiterate the situation for the person who hasn't been
> doing his homework.  If it's an occasional thing by someone who's
> contributing back, it's not a big deal.  If every user who wanted
> storage groups did it--and some significant portion didn't contribute
> back--it would steal a bunch of time from the already-lacking-time
> people who are trying to contribute back.

 > If you're not asking questions that were already answered or reporting
> invalid tickets, you're not leaching.

I see what's happening here.  I'm assuming people will react as I do
(doing research, figuring out whether I'm the problem, and taking
appropriate actions), whereas you're assuming people will react by
ignorantly reporting bugs or asking questions that have already been
answered. (And I understand why that'd be your opinion.)

> > I agree that when a person steps into the SVN waters, he/she needs to
> > do so with the understanding that it's _not_ the release version, may
> > have glitches, and is expected to either be competent enough to at
> > least submit a bug report
>
> After verifying that the behavior is in fact a bug and not a
> misconfiguration or misunderstanding.  We get plenty of invalid tickets
> about the much-better-documented 0.20 version.  We don't need a bunch of
> invalid tickets about the not-so-well-documented-yet SVN trunk version.
>

Agreed.

> >  or tuck-tail and reinstall the release
> > version.
> >
>
> With an appropriate pre-upgrade backup.
>

And agreed.  I thought I'd already gone on long enough and didn't
fully qualify those last statements. My bad. =)

> My main point is that SVN trunk is /not/ for general use.  If it were,
> it would be released for general use.
>
> Mike

I understand what you mean.  However, some features are so darned good
that they're worth the risk of using 'alpha' code. Over the last year,
I've found several 'one-off' features that compelled me to use SVN
(improved HD Homerun support, Storage Groups, HD autoscanning, etc).

I agree with where you're coming from though.  If users want to use
SVN, they need to either be willing to contribute, research, and
report, or not use SVN.

--PhillW