Re: mac osx
- From
Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 21, 2011, 09:44 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAGdFq_hVy9Jsih6MiOYhQHsfnG-bSfV1zi+NY1iF8z0ruBc4Ng@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <loom.20110921T002437-246@post.gmane.org>
Heya,
[bcc: git list, let's take this off-list, but I do want the record to show that I do not think this is the way we should communicate on this list]
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 00:40, tom smitts <tomsmitts@ymail.com> wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> Do the git maintainers really think any mac users have > a clue which git install package to download? You > put some arcane chipset designation in the package > name! Why make mac installers at all? Mac users > know their operating system number, e.g. 10.6.7, > and that's all. I doubt Windows users know any better. > And I doubt you can find anywhere on a mac that says > i386 or whatever the heck the other dumb > designation is.
What value does writing your email in this way add? Wouldn't it be much more productive if instead you had written something like this:
Show 12 quoted lines
> Hi, I noticed that the mac installers (found here [0]) include a > chipset designation (such as i386 or x86_64). In my experience, > Mac users (as well as Windows users) are not familiar with these > terms, and will not know which to choose. It would perhaps be > better to rename the package to have a 32bit or 64bit suffix instead, > which these users are more likely to know. > If this is the wrong place to report this issue, please feel free to > forward this to the appropriate person. > > Thanks > > http://code.google.com/p/git-osx-installer/downloads/list
As you can see it's about as long as your reply, but a lot less aggressive. It conveys the same information (the current package naming is sub-optimal), but does so in a much friendlier way.
-- Cheers, Sverre Rabbelier