Erik Faye-Lund wrote:

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Erik Faye-Lund wrote:

quoted

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Felipe Contreras

quoted

You think changing the execution bit of a file is considered "activity"?

Well, now we're getting into semantics, which I don't care so much
about.

Convenient.

Yeah, the part above here goes in my "don't argue with idiots, they'll
drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"-filter.
Good luck trying to convince *anyone* with this line of argumentation.

It has been demonstrated that there is inactivity. The fact that your
semantics about "inactivity" differ from the rest of the world is
irrelevant.

quoted

quoted

It shows some sort of interest in the scripts, at least.

Not it doesn't. Jonathan Nieder updated the execution bit on a bunch of
scripts in contrib, these being just in the way. It doesn't show
interest at all.

All of those changes relate to the MSVC-build. So it's not "just some
batch-fixup" as you're trying to suggest.

It is a huge batch-fixup[1]. In fact he mentioned he tested it on
Debian, not Windows.

quoted

If you don't care that these scripts keep working properly, I don't see
why anybody else would.

You're the one making up requirements for tests here, so this is your
itch. This script gets fixed by it's stake-holders when it breaks, and
that has worked out fine so far.

You are not interested in improving the quality of these scripts. Got
it.

quoted

The script doesn't depend on the version of the Makefile, and proof of
that is that is has *never* been changed even though the Makefile has.

Except it has, in 74cf9bd.

Once change in *four* years. My god! How are people ever going to keep
up with such amount of changes if it moves out-of-tree!

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/238347

-- 
Felipe Contreras