Joe Ross
02-02-2009, 12:32
First noticed in this thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=73396
Wow, was it just Rev F that had the wrong numbering or did every Rev up to the current one have two R18s? Is every post citing specific rules (from section 8) prior to the current Rev incorrectly numbered?
It looks like Rev F was the only one with the bad numbering with <R18>. Rev E was correct, and Rev G is also.
However, I did just notice another, bigger problem. Prior to Rev G (excluding Ref F), the rules went:
<R65> <R66> <R67> <R66> <R67> <R68> <R69> <R70>
With Rev G, they go:
<R65> <R66> <R67> <R68> <R69> <R70> <R71> <R72>
Now anything after this series is shifted by 2 from the rules prior to rev E (and 3 from Rev F).
I realize that mistakes happen. However it looks like the GDC found and corrected them silently. To any systems engineer, that should be unacceptable. Now anyone that reads a post from last week or earlier will get pointed to the wrong rule. Has the GDC also silently corrected every Q/A post, or will people be mislead there also?
At a minimum, team update 8 should have mentioned the correction. Even better would have been to only correct the rules in the above sequence and done a <R65> <R66.1> <R67.1> <R66.2> <R67.2> <R68> <R69> <R70> type sequence, so that the higher number rules aren't affected.
Wow, was it just Rev F that had the wrong numbering or did every Rev up to the current one have two R18s? Is every post citing specific rules (from section 8) prior to the current Rev incorrectly numbered?
It looks like Rev F was the only one with the bad numbering with <R18>. Rev E was correct, and Rev G is also.
However, I did just notice another, bigger problem. Prior to Rev G (excluding Ref F), the rules went:
<R65> <R66> <R67> <R66> <R67> <R68> <R69> <R70>
With Rev G, they go:
<R65> <R66> <R67> <R68> <R69> <R70> <R71> <R72>
Now anything after this series is shifted by 2 from the rules prior to rev E (and 3 from Rev F).
I realize that mistakes happen. However it looks like the GDC found and corrected them silently. To any systems engineer, that should be unacceptable. Now anyone that reads a post from last week or earlier will get pointed to the wrong rule. Has the GDC also silently corrected every Q/A post, or will people be mislead there also?
At a minimum, team update 8 should have mentioned the correction. Even better would have been to only correct the rules in the above sequence and done a <R65> <R66.1> <R67.1> <R66.2> <R67.2> <R68> <R69> <R70> type sequence, so that the higher number rules aren't affected.