Renumbering of rules in rev F and Rev G of section 8

[Joe_Ross]

First noticed in this thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=73396

@Vikesrock

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.

[Mark_McLeod]

I noticed the discrepancy and rule numbering confusion in the Team Updates first where, for instance:
– Team Update 8 added <R11.1>, but it was really <G11.1>
– Team Update 7 added <R82.1>, but it was really <R85.1>

A lot of confusion in the revision numbers this year.

P.S. The original manual did not have the duplicate R66, etc.
Rev. G actually returns to the original manual’s rule naming scheme.

[Joe_Ross]

@Mark McLeod

P.S. The original manual did not have the duplicate R66, etc.
Rev. G actually returns to the original manual’s rule naming scheme.

You’re right. I had only gone back as far as Rev B (so I didn’t have to type in the password).

Still, a little warning would have been greatly appreciated, once they found the problem.

[skidmarks]

I noticed the Rev. E <R65> <R66> <R67> <R66> <R67> <R68> <R69> <R70> problem, but I figured someone else noticed it. I agree that it should have been changed using .1 and .2 to differentiate it rather than silently changing all the following numbers. Hope confusion doesn’t ensue.