01 Mar 19 18:24, mark lewis wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:
ml> no, he was asked two questions... they are still quoted at the top...
ml> 1. where we can look at their contribution? ml> 2. git clone what?
ml> AFAICT, the first question was answered, not the 2nd one...
"T" meaning what here?
Anyway, this is what I was trying to point out: Two questions, one answer. The answer could apply to both or any of the questions. So without any further comment the logical thing to assume (not only) for me would be (in that order): 1. the answer is for both questions 2. the answer is for the last question 3. the answer is for the first question 4. the answer has nothing to do with the questions at all
Turns out that #3 was intended by Nick, but this was far from being clear.
GK>> What do you expect the person you gave the answer to do next if not GK>> running a git clone command on said URL?
ml> maybe try different methods of accessing the given URL? it isn't like ml> anyone should need any hand holding...
Yeah, one possibility. OTOH, what's wrong about saying what one already did try and understood, and asking back for clarification? Even if the website and browser access is there, a clonable repository might have been preferrable for the original poster, so the next question would be if that repo is there at all, anyway.
After all, this is probably not so much about hand holding but rather asking how much of whose time to burn: <n> people receiving an unclear answer and not knowing what it should exactly mean (maybe leading them all to try various things to find out), or 1 person who gave an unclear answer to several people (just by making things more clear with one more sentence). However, I have to decide this kind of thing in my job multiple times each day, so maybe I'm subject to a bit of bias in situations like this.
