Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

You people just had to change your con plans around, didn't you? (No, not targeted at Liz, but triggered by being reminded of it.)

In other news, I'm annoyed with the Parrot people. Once upon a time, I wrote the Configure system, and designed it with certain characteristics. For example, steps in the Configure process aren't supposed to output anything, besides a few words about what they're doing and a "done" when they're finished. But in the last year or so, people have been instrumenting the steps, so now Configure's output is a mess.

Well, not anymore--I just fixed it.

They've also been polluting Configure's database with huge (212 lines, in one case) chunks of Makefile. This is so incredibly wrong it's not even funny. Still need to figure out how to handle that, as well as reducing the number of steps (39, currently)...


( Read 6 comments — Leave a comment )
Mar. 6th, 2004 03:09 pm (UTC)
My plans were always Otakon. I didn't want everyone to leave A-kon. *wibbles*
Mar. 6th, 2004 03:17 pm (UTC)
Er, A-kon was never finalized, and Otakon was made 'official' like well over a month ago now. People can still go to what cons they want, but the people who're only going to one major con are going there. I'm going to be at both ACen and Otakon, though.
Mar. 6th, 2004 03:21 pm (UTC)
Otakon was made 'official' like well over a month ago now.

I had to know at the beginning of December, and at that time, it looked like Akon.
Mar. 6th, 2004 03:49 pm (UTC)
Eh, my computer lists my file of the chart for the con threads as being created November 19. And I know for a fact that Otakon had an edge from the beginning and was definitely on top within a couple weeks.
Mar. 6th, 2004 03:38 pm (UTC)
Wait, is there no way to change your plans, now?
Mar. 6th, 2004 04:16 pm (UTC)
My plans didn't become Otakon until it became clear that a lot of people I'd like to meet would be there, but I never could have made it to Akon anyway.

I guess that makes this comment kind of irrelevant, though.
( Read 6 comments — Leave a comment )