Re: [Groff] Gettin' the latest

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Miklos,

> > I don't understand why you emailed us an iamge of a web browser
> > instead of telling us the URL or pasting in the page's content?
> 
> Because it saved you getting to the web page. Because it contained
> the URL in case you wanted to check. Because it did not occur to me
> that in the age of  broadband a single picture could be a problem.
> That's why. Apologies if this upset you  so much.

It didn't upset me.  I just had to save the attachment from the email
client, then start up an image viewer to peer at it.  Having got that
far, I wondered why you just didn't paste the text.  It would help
Google index the mailing list archive too.

> > > Well, I got a lot, but it is Version 1.19 (huh).
> >
> > What makes you think this?
> 
> The content of the VERSION file. I think that this makes me think
> that it is 1.19 :-)

Ah, well that's one problem.  There's REVISION as well.  And neither are
valid when extracting from CVS HEAD since they can be ready for a
future, not yet happened, release.

> > > Do I need the CVS at all for my wants?
> >
> > That I don't know.  Someone here may.  Give us a clue as to your
> > wants.  ;-)
> 
> That you do. I believe that I mentioned the .devicem macro ... :-)

Sorry, you did mention .devicem.  It was just before the image and by
the time I'd mucked around with that I'd forgotton when you referred to
your wants again at the end of the email after the image.

> Ralph, in my life I've learned to tolerate a lot of things.
> Arrogance, however, still gets up my nose.  Well, consider this. Since
> we came down from the tree, we have  specialized. Just think of the
> number of people who, like me, a la Joe User, are interested in groff
> and the  likes, but do not live for groff, do not live for forums, do
> not live for enforcing club rules.  That is, they are less
> knowledgeable in these things than you are.  But otherwise, they might
> just be able to put you in their shirt pocket.

Sorry if I came across arrogant.

I needed to ask many questions because you were imprecise in reporting
the problem, e.g. not saying why you thought CVS was giving you 1.19,
and what information you did give conflicted with what I'd expect, e.g.
address@hidden:/sources/groff is "behind the times".
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html is a useful
occasional read.

A Google for "groff release .devicem" gives
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/groff/groff/NEWS which suggests
1.19.2 doesn't contain .devicem:  1.213's comment versus 1.205's tags.

Cheers,


Ralph.