On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 05:02:23PM -0800, Joe Mistachkin wrote: > > Chad Perrin wrote: > > > > If you use bleeding edge versions, you should already be prepared to deal > > with changes in behavior. I don't see the problem. > > > > I help write the "bleeding edge" versions. Therefore, it is useful that I > run them on a daily basis as well.
. . . therefore, I don't see the problem. > > > > There will always be someone disenfranchised. The question is whether we > > should disenfranchise people who are very, very bad at software > > management, or disenfranchise people who want their software to work in a > > reasonable manner. > > I would just like to point out here that, contrary to your assertion to the > contrary, I do care about other people besides myself in this matter. I'd call it a suggestion, rather than an assertion. I don't think I quite explicitly made that charge. It's nice to know you care, though. Perhaps you'd like to acknowledge that fact in future comments rather than phrase your commentary like that two which I responded. > > > > Show me where I "demonized" anyone. I didn't imply people are stupid, > > the way some emails opposed to changing `rm` and `mv` have. I didn't say > > people were morally reprehensible, acting maliciously to make others' > > lives difficult. I just asked about whether the primary priority should > > be for people who don't care enough about their work to pay attention to > > their tools. > > It's very subtle, but it's there. To quote, "someone who will never pay > attention to warnings". Out of curiousity, how many warnings given by > software do *YOU* routinely ignore (e.g. web site security, etc)? "Someone who will never pay attention to warnings" isn't a demonization. It's a characterization of people who, well, never pay attention to warnings -- which, you may note, was obviously not directed at you personally, in any case. There are people out there who never pay attention to warnings, and people who use four-year out of date software with critical security vulnerabilities left unpatched. Screws fall out all the time. The world is an imperfect place. Please tell me who else would not notice warnings over a gentle deprecation period with warnings other than: 1. those who never pay attention to warnings 2. those who go for ridiculously long times without updating software I'm willing to acknowledge the existence of people in large numbers falling through that crack if you can point out such a crack through which large numbers of people might fall. The world is, after all, an imperfect place (see above). I just see no evidence of them in any arguments for inflexible stasis of software defaults so far. > > > > . . . except that, given your reactions to some of the other things I > > said, you seem inclined to take statements as insults when they obviously > > are not intended as insults, so the problem isn't really solved on your > > end. Right? > > After having read several of your previous posts to others on this list, > including several containing insults, it seemed to be a fair assumption. I recommend you read for denotative meaning of words rather than for imagined tone in the future. Emails do not generally come with tone of voice. > > > > That seems like another implementation detail. > > I'm not sure how to respond to this. Yes, changes to software do require > changing the implementation. When taken in isolation, ignoring everything else I said about implementation details, I suppose it's easy to pretend I said something nonsensical. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
