On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 01:31:48AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > I don't think it is the end of the world if we say "upstream branch". I > > was hoping to find a term that could be both friendly and accurate. > > > > And failing that, I hoped you might say "I see what you are saying, but > > I cannot think of a term that is more precise that does not sacrifice > > friendliness". But as I seem incapable of even communicating the issue > > to you, I'm giving up. It is not worth wasting more time on it. > > And I was hoping you wouldn't use rhetorical warfare and label things > as "inaccurate", "imprecise", "breadcrumbs".
FWIW, the term "breadcrumbs" was meant as a _good_ thing. I meant that you are using a term that will link the user to other concepts that use the same term (like "branch --set-upstream-to"), and that is something we would like to keep. As for the others, I find your accusation of rhetorical warfare ridiculous. Insulting your patch with non-constructive insults would be rhetorical. Saying "I think it has a flaw, here are my reasons, and I hope we can come up with a solution that does not have that flaw without weakening the other properties" is collaboration. Or an attempt at it anyway. I do not know why you and I have so much trouble communicating on even basic things. I am willing to accept that it is entirely my fault. But that does not change the fact that I often find it a waste of time, and I plan to do less of it by ending my involvement in threads that seem to be unproductive. > At this porcelain level, branch.<name>.remote does not exist, so > "upstream branch" is accurate. Period. I do not agree with your first sentence at all. And your second one is purely rhetorical. I can elaborate if you really care, but I have a feeling you do not. -Peff -- 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
