Re: [PATCH 1/2] fetch: add missing documentation

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 01:31:48AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

I don't think it is the end of the world if we say "upstream branch". I
was hoping to find a term that could be both friendly and accurate.

And failing that, I hoped you might say "I see what you are saying, but
I cannot think of a term that is more precise that does not sacrifice
friendliness". But as I seem incapable of even communicating the issue
to you, I'm giving up. It is not worth wasting more time on it.

And I was hoping you wouldn't use rhetorical warfare and label things
as "inaccurate", "imprecise", "breadcrumbs".

FWIW, the term "breadcrumbs" was meant as a _good_ thing. I meant that
you are using a term that will link the user to other concepts that use
the same term (like "branch --set-upstream-to"), and that is something
we would like to keep.

As for the others, I find your accusation of rhetorical warfare
ridiculous. Insulting your patch with non-constructive insults would be
rhetorical. Saying "I think it has a flaw, here are my reasons, and I
hope we can come up with a solution that does not have that flaw without
weakening the other properties" is collaboration. Or an attempt at it
anyway.

I do not know why you and I have so much trouble communicating on even
basic things. I am willing to accept that it is entirely my fault. But
that does not change the fact that I often find it a waste of time, and
I plan to do less of it by ending my involvement in threads that seem to
be unproductive.

At this porcelain level, branch.<name>.remote does not exist, so
"upstream branch" is accurate. Period.

I do not agree with your first sentence at all. And your second one is
purely rhetorical.

I can elaborate if you really care, but I have a feeling you do not.

-Peff