On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote:
> 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.
"breadcrumbs" implies it's not the full thing the user expects. While
in some cases it might indeed lead the user to further concepts, it's
also likely the user already knows what "upstream branch" means, in
which case it's not a "breadcrumb", it's the full meal.
It's as misleading as saying Atlas Shrugged is a light read, sure, it
might be to some people, but it's certainly not the case for
everybody, so saying so is not an actual fact.
> As for the others, I find your accusation of rhetorical warfare
> ridiculous. Insulting your patch with non-constructive insults would be
That actually wouldn't be rhetorical. If you say "I think this is
crap", that would simply be stating an opinion, and everyone would
understand that, saying "This is imprecise" is rhetorical, because you
convey an opinion as a fact, and it's actually much more damaging than
the former, because people wouldn't read it as an opinion, which is
precisely what rhetoric is about: persuation, rightly or not.
Even worst, you might believe it yourself.
> 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.
But you didn't say you *thought* there was a flaw, you said there was
a flaw, specifically, you said it was imprecise.
USA didn't say "Well, uhm, we think Iraq has weapons of mass
destruction", they said "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and
it's not a question of _if_ they are going to use them, but _when_".
These two statements cause a very different reaction from the
listener, thanks to the art of rhetoric.
> 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.
I think it's very clear, you think your opinions are worth a hundred
times more than my opinions. Actually, it's even worst, you think your
opinions are facts. What kind of person challenges facts? only stupid
little brats on the Internet, or morons, right? But when two equals
have a difference of opinion, it's just that.
If you accepted that my opinion weighs as much has yours, and that
when we differ it might be you the one that is wrong, as much as it
might be me, things would go very differently.
>> 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.
Exactly. You used rhetoric to convey your opinions as facts, so I used
it to the same effect.
> I can elaborate if you really care, but I have a feeling you do not.
If you are going to present your opinion as facts, then no, I do not care.
If you are going to explain why you *personally* *think* *in your
opinion* that branch.<name>.remote is a porcelain level concept, then
sure, I would be interested in hearing why. But first I would like for
you do an exercise and find out where exactly does this high level
concept lands in the ProGit book.
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