[website] Incorrect release date on the front page

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[website] Incorrect release date on the front page

Anonymous-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [website] Incorrect release date on the front page

Otto Moerbeek
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 03:13:00PM +0000, Anonymous wrote:

> Here too: https://www.openbsd.org/65.html

Does it matter? It is very common for publications to be dated in the
future.

        -Otto

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [website] Incorrect release date on the front page

Anonymous-2
Otto Moerbeek:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 03:13:00PM +0000, Anonymous wrote:
>
>> Here too: https://www.openbsd.org/65.html
>
> Does it matter? It is very common for publications to be dated in the
> future.
>
> -Otto

No, it's not common, neither for software releases nor for texts
published online (blogposts, fiction, etc). Maybe you're talking about
some niche. And yes, it matters because it's confusing: I opened the
front page soon after the release but was in doubt whether it's for real
because of the date.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [website] Incorrect release date on the front page

chohag
Anonymous writes:

> Otto Moerbeek:
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 03:13:00PM +0000, Anonymous wrote:
> >
> >> Here too: https://www.openbsd.org/65.html
> >
> > Does it matter? It is very common for publications to be dated in the
> > future.
> >
> > -Otto
>
> No, it's not common, neither for software releases nor for texts
> published online (blogposts, fiction, etc). Maybe you're talking about
> some niche. And yes, it matters because it's confusing: I opened the
> front page soon after the release but was in doubt whether it's for real
> because of the date.

Well I'm not an author, editor, publisher or printer but I'm fairly sure
nobody's ever gone from "I'm going to write a book" to "this book has been
printed and is already on the shelves" in less than 24 hours, so
publishing "in advance" like this makes total sense.

A bit weird but luckily I'm not a complete fucking moron so I'm able to
work out that when something says "released* on [future date]" that time
travel was not invented while I wasn't looking and that a week here or
there just doesn't matter.

People pointing out spelling mistakes have more utility than this thread.

Sheesh,

Matthew

[*] past tense

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [website] Incorrect release date on the front page

Theo de Raadt-2
[hidden email] wrote:

> Anonymous writes:
> > Otto Moerbeek:
> > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 03:13:00PM +0000, Anonymous wrote:
> > >
> > >> Here too: https://www.openbsd.org/65.html
> > >
> > > Does it matter? It is very common for publications to be dated in the
> > > future.
> > >
> > > -Otto
> >
> > No, it's not common, neither for software releases nor for texts
> > published online (blogposts, fiction, etc). Maybe you're talking about
> > some niche. And yes, it matters because it's confusing: I opened the
> > front page soon after the release but was in doubt whether it's for real
> > because of the date.
>
> Well I'm not an author, editor, publisher or printer but I'm fairly sure
> nobody's ever gone from "I'm going to write a book" to "this book has been
> printed and is already on the shelves" in less than 24 hours, so
> publishing "in advance" like this makes total sense.
>
> A bit weird but luckily I'm not a complete fucking moron so I'm able to
> work out that when something says "released* on [future date]" that time
> travel was not invented while I wasn't looking and that a week here or
> there just doesn't matter.
>
> People pointing out spelling mistakes have more utility than this thread.

Looking closer, the release directory contains root.mail which is dated
May 1.  That file is also contained in the base set for each
architecture, which is hashed and signed.  Sometimes tar'd, hashed, and
signed.  There are also many binaries and files throughout the release
which aren't date May 1.  It is a pretty unkempt state of affairs.

Obviously to repair some of these issues, we should change the date in
that file (and some other files also) and re-roll all the release
builds.  Starting now.  Which will take some time.  Sadly, those
repaired files will miss May 1, which is sure to elicit new complaints.

Ironic isn't it?  Just-in-time is difficult in the real world.

I suggest the OP learns to let it go.  Or visiting a clinic for some
therapy, in most countries this is government subsidized.

The observant among you will have noticed that most errata+syspatch go
out a day early also.  We've got a good justification for that though --
we are pandering to folk on the early side of the dateline.  You can
conclude the 6.5 release was made available on-time, as we are pandering
to people on the early side of the weekline.  I'll probably pander to
someone else for the 6.6 release.

I'm late, I'm late! For a very important date! No time to say `hello,
goodbye,' I'm late, I'm late, I'm late!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [website] Incorrect release date on the front page

Anonymous-2
Theo de Raadt:

> [hidden email] wrote:
>
>> Anonymous writes:
>>> Otto Moerbeek:
>>>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 03:13:00PM +0000, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here too: https://www.openbsd.org/65.html
>>>>
>>>> Does it matter? It is very common for publications to be dated in the
>>>> future.
>>>>
>>>> -Otto
>>>
>>> No, it's not common, neither for software releases nor for texts
>>> published online (blogposts, fiction, etc). Maybe you're talking about
>>> some niche. And yes, it matters because it's confusing: I opened the
>>> front page soon after the release but was in doubt whether it's for real
>>> because of the date.
>>
>> Well I'm not an author, editor, publisher or printer but I'm fairly sure
>> nobody's ever gone from "I'm going to write a book" to "this book has been
>> printed and is already on the shelves" in less than 24 hours, so
>> publishing "in advance" like this makes total sense.
>>
>> A bit weird but luckily I'm not a complete fucking moron so I'm able to
>> work out that when something says "released* on [future date]" that time
>> travel was not invented while I wasn't looking and that a week here or
>> there just doesn't matter.
>>
>> People pointing out spelling mistakes have more utility than this thread.
>
> Looking closer, the release directory contains root.mail which is dated
> May 1.  That file is also contained in the base set for each
> architecture, which is hashed and signed.  Sometimes tar'd, hashed, and
> signed.  There are also many binaries and files throughout the release
> which aren't date May 1.  It is a pretty unkempt state of affairs.
>
> Obviously to repair some of these issues, we should change the date in
> that file (and some other files also) and re-roll all the release
> builds.  Starting now.  Which will take some time.  Sadly, those
> repaired files will miss May 1, which is sure to elicit new complaints.
>
> Ironic isn't it?  Just-in-time is difficult in the real world.
>
> I suggest the OP learns to let it go.  Or visiting a clinic for some
> therapy, in most countries this is government subsidized.
>
> The observant among you will have noticed that most errata+syspatch go
> out a day early also.  We've got a good justification for that though --
> we are pandering to folk on the early side of the dateline.  You can
> conclude the 6.5 release was made available on-time, as we are pandering
> to people on the early side of the weekline.  I'll probably pander to
> someone else for the 6.6 release.
>
> I'm late, I'm late! For a very important date! No time to say `hello,
> goodbye,' I'm late, I'm late, I'm late!
The reason for concern is that if the date is wrong then the
infrastructure used to roll out the release has a bug which can have
whatever consequences so rushing to download is unwise. But yes, I see
that nothing has changed since the 70s, same moronic attitude towards
people confused by Unix shit. At least you are funny morons, I give you
that:)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [website] Incorrect release date on the front page

chohag
Anonymous writes:
> Some pointless bullshit or other

Turns out time's not as simple a concept as your average developer assumed.

Apparently you're going to have to learn some things. It could be a first!

Welcome to the real world.

Good luck.

Matthew

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [website] Incorrect release date on the front page

Mihai Popescu-3
In reply to this post by Anonymous-2
> I see that nothing has changed since the 70s, same moronic attitude towards people confused > by Unix shit.

I guess the attitude from people asking is the same like '70. Just
asking, I came in this world a few years late.

> the release has a bug / funny morons

A few dozen people taking care of a release, doing it and one outsider
comes to tell them they may have a bug in that. Now, that was funny!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [website] Incorrect release date on the front page

Otto Moerbeek
In reply to this post by Anonymous-2
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 09:11:00PM +0000, Anonymous wrote:

> Theo de Raadt:
> > [hidden email] wrote:
> >
> >> Anonymous writes:
> >>> Otto Moerbeek:
> >>>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 03:13:00PM +0000, Anonymous wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Here too: https://www.openbsd.org/65.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Does it matter? It is very common for publications to be dated in the
> >>>> future.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Otto
> >>>
> >>> No, it's not common, neither for software releases nor for texts
> >>> published online (blogposts, fiction, etc). Maybe you're talking about
> >>> some niche. And yes, it matters because it's confusing: I opened the
> >>> front page soon after the release but was in doubt whether it's for real
> >>> because of the date.
> >>
> >> Well I'm not an author, editor, publisher or printer but I'm fairly sure
> >> nobody's ever gone from "I'm going to write a book" to "this book has been
> >> printed and is already on the shelves" in less than 24 hours, so
> >> publishing "in advance" like this makes total sense.
> >>
> >> A bit weird but luckily I'm not a complete fucking moron so I'm able to
> >> work out that when something says "released* on [future date]" that time
> >> travel was not invented while I wasn't looking and that a week here or
> >> there just doesn't matter.
> >>
> >> People pointing out spelling mistakes have more utility than this thread.
> >
> > Looking closer, the release directory contains root.mail which is dated
> > May 1.  That file is also contained in the base set for each
> > architecture, which is hashed and signed.  Sometimes tar'd, hashed, and
> > signed.  There are also many binaries and files throughout the release
> > which aren't date May 1.  It is a pretty unkempt state of affairs.
> >
> > Obviously to repair some of these issues, we should change the date in
> > that file (and some other files also) and re-roll all the release
> > builds.  Starting now.  Which will take some time.  Sadly, those
> > repaired files will miss May 1, which is sure to elicit new complaints.
> >
> > Ironic isn't it?  Just-in-time is difficult in the real world.
> >
> > I suggest the OP learns to let it go.  Or visiting a clinic for some
> > therapy, in most countries this is government subsidized.
> >
> > The observant among you will have noticed that most errata+syspatch go
> > out a day early also.  We've got a good justification for that though --
> > we are pandering to folk on the early side of the dateline.  You can
> > conclude the 6.5 release was made available on-time, as we are pandering
> > to people on the early side of the weekline.  I'll probably pander to
> > someone else for the 6.6 release.
> >
> > I'm late, I'm late! For a very important date! No time to say `hello,
> > goodbye,' I'm late, I'm late, I'm late!
> The reason for concern is that if the date is wrong then the
> infrastructure used to roll out the release has a bug which can have
> whatever consequences so rushing to download is unwise. But yes, I see
> that nothing has changed since the 70s, same moronic attitude towards
> people confused by Unix shit. At least you are funny morons, I give you
> that:)
>

We have better mechanisms to check a release than a date on a website.

Maybe we should wait next time until the release date? Would give me
the time to catch up on reading my National Geographic May issue.

        -Otto