From: David Kastrup <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 23:00:59
Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
quoted
Richard Hansen [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
These three usage patterns are at odds; it's hard to change the
default behavior of 'git pull' to favor one usage case without
harming another. Perhaps this is why there's so much disagreement
about what 'git pull' should do.
Should a screwdriver be turning clockwise or counterclockwise by
default? There are valid arguments for either.
If you don't have anything to contribute don't disturb the people that
actually care and are trying to improve Git. Thanks.
No need to expand on the welcoming atmosphere here. My heinous plot to
subvert the quality of Git has already been thwarted by making sure that
its "meritocracy" continues relying only on input from those with an
independent income. I'm just sticking around until my current
contributions move into master so that I can summarize the resulting
low-hanging fruit that the meritorious can then pick at great fanfare.
The sooner my work moves from pu into master, the sooner y'all be rid of
me.
--
David Kastrup
From: David Lang <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 23:01:00
On Sat, 3 May 2014, David Kastrup wrote:
Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
David Kastrup wrote:
quoted
Richard Hansen [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
These three usage patterns are at odds; it's hard to change the
default behavior of 'git pull' to favor one usage case without
harming another. Perhaps this is why there's so much disagreement
about what 'git pull' should do.
Should a screwdriver be turning clockwise or counterclockwise by
default? There are valid arguments for either.
If you don't have anything to contribute don't disturb the people that
actually care and are trying to improve Git. Thanks.
No need to expand on the welcoming atmosphere here.
note that this is one person taking the "I don't see any commits from you so
your opinion doesn't count" attitude.
the vast majority of people here do not take that attitude.
David Lang
My heinous plot to
subvert the quality of Git has already been thwarted by making sure that
its "meritocracy" continues relying only on input from those with an
independent income. I'm just sticking around until my current
contributions move into master so that I can summarize the resulting
low-hanging fruit that the meritorious can then pick at great fanfare.
The sooner my work moves from pu into master, the sooner y'all be rid of
me.
From: Felipe Contreras <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 23:01:00
David Lang wrote:
note that this is one person taking the "I don't see any commits from
you so your opinion doesn't count" attitude.
Wrong. I said it doesn't count "for the project". Do you honestly
believe Junio cares about what some random guy on the list thinks about
default aliases? No.
If he doesn't care what literally everyone thinks about the name
"index", why would he care about that random guy?
the vast majority of people here do not take that attitude.
It's actually the exact opposite. I don't care what is the track record
of the people in the discussion. If their argument is good, their
argument is good.
It's the others that focus on the carisma and credentials of the people
in the discussion, rather than the arguments.
--
Felipe Contreras
From: James Denholm <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 23:01:00
Felipe Contreras wrote:
David Lang wrote:
quoted
the vast majority of people here do not take that attitude.
It's actually the exact opposite. I don't care what is the track record
of the people in the discussion.
Ah, yes, like that discussion we once had where you totally
didn't run `git log | grep James Denholm` at one point to demonstrate that I had not yet made any
contributions,instead of actually engaging in discussion. Oh,
wait.
If their argument is good, their argument is good.
The problem, though, is that time and time again you've
shown that you value your own arguments to the exclusion
of all others. You can't tell if someone else's argument is
good, because it runs against yours, and yours must be
right because you hold it.
Regards,
James Denholm.
From: Felipe Contreras <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 23:01:00
James Denholm wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
quoted
David Lang wrote:
quoted
the vast majority of people here do not take that attitude.
It's actually the exact opposite. I don't care what is the track record
of the people in the discussion.
Ah, yes, like that discussion we once had where you totally didn't run
`git log | grep James Denholm` at one point to demonstrate that I had
not yet made any contributions,instead of actually engaging in
discussion. Oh, wait.
You mean this thread[1] in which I sent 14 mails directly to you? Yeah,
I din't engage in that discussion at all!
And the point I was making is that if I manage to show the community was
wrong in some thing (as you claimed), that community wouldn't include
you.
quoted
If their argument is good, their argument is good.
The problem, though, is that time and time again you've shown that you
value your own arguments to the exclusion of all others. You can't
tell if someone else's argument is good, because it runs against
yours, and yours must be right because you hold it.
I can show you evidence of how that's a blatant lie. Just two days ago I
changed my mind because somebody provided a good argument.
But I'm not going to bother any more with you, you are just spreading
lies and tainting the discussion.
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/247188/focus=247584
--
Felipe Contreras
From: James Denholm <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 23:01:00
On 4 May 2014 19:51:09 GMT+10:00, Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] wrote:
James Denholm wrote:
quoted
Felipe Contreras wrote:
quoted
David Lang wrote:
quoted
the vast majority of people here do not take that attitude.
It's actually the exact opposite. I don't care what is the track
record
quoted
quoted
of the people in the discussion.
Ah, yes, like that discussion we once had where you totally didn't
run
quoted
`git log | grep James Denholm` at one point to demonstrate that I had
not yet made any contributions,instead of actually engaging in
discussion. Oh, wait.
You mean this thread[1] in which I sent 14 mails directly to you? Yeah,
I din't engage in that discussion at all!
Yeah, you didn't. Instead you danced, but I guess it's
really all said and done now so eh, have your point.
quoted
quoted
If their argument is good, their argument is good.
The problem, though, is that time and time again you've shown that
you
quoted
value your own arguments to the exclusion of all others. You can't
tell if someone else's argument is good, because it runs against
yours, and yours must be right because you hold it.
I can show you evidence of how that's a blatant lie. Just two days ago
I
changed my mind because somebody provided a good argument.
And I can show you evidence of you being
indiscourseable on the topic of your pet proposals,
but I won't, because you're indiscourseable on the
meta similarly.
But I'm not going to bother any more with you, you are just spreading
lies and tainting the discussion.
Well, maybe we'll see what other folks think.
Regards,
James Denholm.