Nico Williams <[email protected]> wrote: >Go back through those 30 posts you mentioned. Go back to the very >first one from me. I tried to be concise and wrote just three >paragraphs that, IMO, captured what was needed. I certainly did not >say "I want git rebase in fossil" and then watched the fireworks -- >no, I explained *concisely* (or at least that was my aim).
No, you said "I want something slightly different than git rebase in fossil." Concise? Yes. Precise? No. Well-defined? No. Useful? No. >If I had written a ten-page post explaining in excruciating detail >what rebase is, why it matters, and how to adapt it to the Fossil >philosophy, who -but who!- would have read that first post? I was >being (I thought!) considerate. And judging by last night's 30 posts, >would it have made any difference to post a thesis-length argument for >rebase? And if so, how was I to know that? Or should I have given up >at the very first sign of trouble? That depends on the goal. If you want to troll the list, then arguing for rebase is a good choice. If you want fossil to incorporate a solution for your problem, you should provide the information people are asking for. Given how poorly your attempt to work with the comunity has gone, giving up now isn't an unreasonable option. On the other hand, if you want to be able to use fossil, and are willing to work with us to solve your problem instead of arguing about what "rebase" does, you can start by answering our questions. For instance, you haven't answered any of my questions. You've explained in detail what rebase does, but that's irrelevant, because rebase is only an approximation to what you want, and you haven't explained how what you want is different in sufficient detail for us to figure out what that is. You haven't shown us why the existing solutions are "to much work". You haven't said what kind of interface you want (otherr than "interactive rebase", and you haven't said what that interface looks like!). You may think you have, but your opinion here doesn't matter: if we don't have a clear understanding of what you want, we don't have it, and the onus is on you to provide it. The best way to do that is by answering our questions. "rebase" is just a name. Forget it. Quit trying to convince us that "rebase" is compatible with fossil. Show us that *what you want* is compatible with fossil. Of course, that has to start with a *precise* description of what you want, in fossil terms, not in git terms. Give us an *example*. Simplify it as much as you can, but leave in all the features you want. Show us how you'd do it with fossil now. Show us the commands you would like to have (and call them TBD or some such), and how we would use them. -- Sent from my Android tablet with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my swyping. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
