On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote: > Erik Faye-Lund wrote: >> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Felipe Contreras >> <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Erik Faye-Lund wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Felipe Contreras >> >> > 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. > >> > 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! >
It's rather amusing to see you react to my definition of "activity", when you seem to have a rather unusual definition of "never"... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
