On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 19:55:28 +0400, Konstantin Khomoutov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 16:20:32 +0100 > LluÃs Batlle i Rossell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Top post due to... > okay. > The last three messages to this thread look somewhat alarming. > > In the first message of these, Mike Meyer, first ruled out the whole > tool (Git) due to hating its optional feature and then proceeded with a > fancastic technical argument against it: "None. Zero. Nada. Never.".
Software choice often comes down to a single feature, and "optional" in this case means that the project lead can't stop others doing it, except by policy, which doesn't work. And what's wrong with emphasizing the fact that the suggested motivations for rebase have never happened to him? > The second one, from Eric, contained the exclamation "Rebase is a lie!" > repeated three times in a row. Would you have been happier if I'd only said it once without the exclamation mark? It's been said here before by others as well, and it's how we see it. > And now I'm reading about Git users ashamed for the histories they > create. I must admit I don't get that one at all. > <sarcasm>You guys do really sound as a religious sect.</sarcasm> We have our opinions, we are convinced of them, and we are still waiting for a counter-argument that even approaches convincing. > Of course, this is a pro-Fossil list, but I fail to understand why such > bashing of a rival DVCS and preaching are really required: Bashing and preaching? Such emotive words, and I don't think anyone is doing them. I personally am merely somewhat annoyed by those who want Fossil to have something just because Git (or some other program) has it. I want to know what problem rebase (or whatever feature someone wants) solves, then we can figure out if that problem even exists in the same form in Fossil, and then how to fix the problem in Fossil in a way compatible with the philosophy of Fossil. > those who might be "converted" are unlikely to read this list anyway > (they're supposedly busy reading "Pro Git" now), and those who are > reading this list admittedly prefer dry technical arguments. No conversion attempts, but we need methodology arguments as well as technical ones to avoid finding beautiful technical solutions to the wrong problems. > Actually, I intended to write a calm and purely technical response to > Mike's message pointing out the ideas Git devs had while implementing > rebasing (I failed to see in this thread any notice of using rebasing to > help future bisecting, for instance), but the next two messages urged > me to write this rather off-topic semi-rant. Please write that response anyway, especially if you know what the Git devs had in mind. Maybe there's something we don't know. Maybe we'll disagree, but at least we'll be arguing about the right things. > TL;DR > I would really like to have such discussions be more technical and less > zealous, if possible, please. Software development is a human activity, so ... Eric -- ms fnd in a lbry
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
