3 ms·

>>to prove that your "easily" claim is a stretch<< > Yes, you were trying to prove that -- you were finding fault instead of finding how to make things work.

by spion 14y ago

>>to prove that your "easily" claim is a stretch<< > Yes, you were trying to prove that -- you were finding fault instead of finding how to make things work. > Other people found how to make things work, because that's what they were trying to do. Not really. The first time I downloaded the zip (about a year ago) I sincerely tried to make it work and did read the readme. Spent about 1 hour then gave up. This time I simply retraced those exact same steps with the intent of showing the current deficiencies. >>Its sufficient to simply warn the user.<< > Was it sufficient to list > Willingness to read the README > as a requirement? Apparently not. Yes it is. Its my fault for not reading the README completely. (but to be fair, all directories of the distribution were not quite covered) You don't have to remove the complete zip archive then add a quiz to the website testing if the user read the README before allowing them to download the complete archive. If that doesn't work either, what then? Will you completely remove the download link to the archive, ruining it for those willing to read the README? The way I see it, you've done your part, the rest is up to the user. This is where I strongly disagree with your approach - and this is why I want to make a new benchmarks game.

igouy 14y ago
> I downloaded the zip (about a year ago) Do you mean the project tarball or do you mean the bencher zip? > I sincerely tried to make it work Did you ask for help? > This time I simply retraced those exact same steps This time you've told everyone such-and-such isn't in the README when it is; such-and-such aren't written anywhere when they are; such-and-such aren't distributed anywhere when they are. None of that stuff changed in the last year. >>and this is why I want to make a new benchmarks game<< So get the tarball tomorrow, read the README, find out what doesn't work for you and fix-it (if you're missing python-gtop install it), make measurements and publish them. Easy.
- spion 14y ago
  > This time you've told everyone such-and-such isn't in the README when it is I clearly demonstrated all the deficiencies of the current distribution, especially in regards to running the same programs (with the same arguments) as those on the website. your explanation of the commandline variables was missing from the readme reference to the actual location of the ini file (my.linux.ini). I expect a section like this: The bencher is configured with an INI file. There are two example ini files included with the distribution: my.linux.ini and my.win32.ini, located in the "makefiles" directory. this can't be found anywhere in the distribution: The ini files from the game website can be found in the nanobench/makefiles directory: <listing of the files> Then I will agree that the documentation is complete, and that the process to run your own benchmarks is almost "easy". If you separate the configuration files, organize the directories more appropriately and write a more condensed README that skips the condescending act towards the user, then I will agree that running your own benchmarks is easy. > Did you ask for help? I wouldn't have had to ask for help if the documentation was complete and adequate. I will however check out the tarball tomorrow. Oh and what about the suggestion to separate the environment configuration from the programs configuration? No comment, I guess...
  - igouy 14y ago
    >>your explanation of the commandline variables was missing from the readme<< The explanation is not missing. The explanation is where you need to see it -- where you write the commandline variables in the ini file. >>I expect...<< Speaking about your expectations would have been better than stating something is "not mentioned anywhere in the document". >>I wouldn't have had to ask for help...<< I guess you didn't ask for help. >>what about the suggestion to...<< What about making and publishing measurements?

by spion 14y ago

igouy 14y ago

> I downloaded the zip (about a year ago) Do you mean the project tarball or do you mean the bencher zip? > I sincerely tried to make it work Did you ask for help? > This time I simply retraced those exact same steps This time you've told everyone such-and-such isn't in the README when it is; such-and-such aren't written anywhere when they are; such-and-such aren't distributed anywhere when they are. None of that stuff changed in the last year. >>and this is why I want to make a new benchmarks game<< So get the tarball tomorrow, read the README, find out what doesn't work for you and fix-it (if you're missing python-gtop install it), make measurements and publish them. Easy.

spion 14y ago
> This time you've told everyone such-and-such isn't in the README when it is I clearly demonstrated all the deficiencies of the current distribution, especially in regards to running the same programs (with the same arguments) as those on the website. your explanation of the commandline variables was missing from the readme reference to the actual location of the ini file (my.linux.ini). I expect a section like this: The bencher is configured with an INI file. There are two example ini files included with the distribution: my.linux.ini and my.win32.ini, located in the "makefiles" directory. this can't be found anywhere in the distribution: The ini files from the game website can be found in the nanobench/makefiles directory: <listing of the files> Then I will agree that the documentation is complete, and that the process to run your own benchmarks is almost "easy". If you separate the configuration files, organize the directories more appropriately and write a more condensed README that skips the condescending act towards the user, then I will agree that running your own benchmarks is easy. > Did you ask for help? I wouldn't have had to ask for help if the documentation was complete and adequate. I will however check out the tarball tomorrow. Oh and what about the suggestion to separate the environment configuration from the programs configuration? No comment, I guess...
- igouy 14y ago
  >>your explanation of the commandline variables was missing from the readme<< The explanation is not missing. The explanation is where you need to see it -- where you write the commandline variables in the ini file. >>I expect...<< Speaking about your expectations would have been better than stating something is "not mentioned anywhere in the document". >>I wouldn't have had to ask for help...<< I guess you didn't ask for help. >>what about the suggestion to...<< What about making and publishing measurements?