On 12/13/2012 08:40 AM, Marcelo wrote:
They want the good things about fossil but they want to keep working as if it were Git. I say, if they like Git so much, eat the crow that comes with it.
And that doesn't even make sense, either. If I wanted Git, then I'd use Git, full stop. It's silly telling me that changing this rm behavior is suddenly going to make Fossil so like Git that I'm all like "Oh, great, now I've succeeded in my nefarious mission of making everything Git-like! Mine is an EVIL laugh! Next I'll ask for rebase!"
Making this sort of argument damages the cause because it puts those of us advocating for a thing in a position we aren't necessarily in, so it makes us want to just let the point go. I don't want Fossil to be another Git, but by telling me that I do, I'm suddenly either compelled to stop advocating for *any* change that violates Least Surprise. And hell, my example didn't even *use* Git's behavior to justify my claims and I'm *still* being told that OMG I want to make Fossil like teh gits! I respect the "Fossil should be conservative" arguments even though I disagree with them, but I'm going to call this exaggeration and hyperbole out on the carpet.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
