RE: Strange behavior

I apologize. It was wrong to say " no one here is interested . . ." Some people are uninterested. Some are interested. Some are extremely helpful. Some can be very egotistical. Just like the real world, you get a mix of good and less than good.

I should've never responded like that to a group because of an apple that I did not agree with. Being frustrated with this product (no excuse) add to that critisim when I try to help (maybe small excuse there) equals my reason, though it is not a good one.

There's inconsistencies with the svn help command also. Maybe in the future I'll help with the documentation. But when you get a free product, and want to give back then take flak when you think you are helping it kinda kills the urge to help.

But I never should've used an absolute like that. Thank you for pointing it out Johan and pointing it out in a polite way instead of condescending.

-----Original Message-----
From: Johan Corveleyn [mailto:jcorvel_at_gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 3:54 PM
To: John Maher
Cc: Ryan Schmidt; Subversion Users
Subject: Re: Strange behavior

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 4:17 PM, John Maher <JohnM_at_rotair.com> wrote:
...
> And the only reason I have been complaining about the documentation is hoping to point out areas where it is very unclear and misleading. Anyone who knows how to use the tool will never catch on to the poorly written areas of the documentation, they are biased. You NEED someone who doesn't know how to use the tool to indicate areas that need to be addressed. But since no one here is interested to maintaining good documentation and are more interested in hunting out any obscured word they can find just to say "look, it is right!!" it seems best if I never, ever point out any flaws in the documentation. I will just selfishly concern myself with my own problems, it seems all will get along better that way.
>

"But since no one here is interested to maintaining good documentation ..."? Oh come on. Of course we want good documentation, and feedback to help improve it is more than welcome. But give the people on this list some credit too, please.

Have you read the very first response you got, from Ryan Schmidt, pointing you to the website of the book, where your feedback would be most welcome?

Also, please keep in mind that the most useful feedback comes in the form of concrete suggestions, or pointing out specific shortcomings.
If you say "I didn't find anything about X", and someone replies "it's on page Y", then the feedback loop is closed. If you want your "not finding about X" to be any further useful book feedback, you'll have to argue why your non-finding is a book problem (rather than an "oops, I looked at the wrong section" problem), and that it should be explained or pointed to on page Z, or wherever you expected to find info about it.

--
Johan