I guess most other people keep out of this because they are sensible enough to not feed the troll, and instead focus on useful things. But I can't help it, I have to say this.
On 17.10.2013, at 23:44, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>> Such a review comment and the discussion that follows it after a >>>> patch is posted is an essential part of the collaborative >>>> development process in this community and it has helped the quality >>>> of our end product. We unfortunately saw time and again that the >>>> process rarely works when the discussion involves your patches. >>> >>> No, you did not. What you saw was a person that unlike a trained dog, argued >>> against you. And apparently your definition of a good discussion is one in >>> which the other person just does what you say, and doesn't argue back. >> >> That is so untrue that it is not even funny. > > It is true, and there's penty of evidence that proves it. No, it is not true, and there is plenty of evidence that proves it. But I don't think it's helpful for either of us drag up such "evidence", as it'll convince nobody -- indeed, I am sure almost everybody here has already formed a clear opinion on this matter. And I hazard to guess that the vast majority agree with Junio on this (based, again, on email evidence). Not with you. Of course one can't prove mathematical theorems by a majority vote, but as we are not talking about theorems, but rather about judging whether Junion's behavior is considered fair or not, I think it is appropriate to. Moreover, if I look at e.g. the "staging area" discussion, you also bring up the "everybody but Junio and one other guy" argument (incorrectly generalizing from "those people on this mailing list who chose to reply" to "everybody"), so I think I am entitled to do the same ;-). (BTW, I am actually in favor of using the term "staging area" over "index") > Every single time that you get mad at me, it's because I disagree with you. I have not yet seen Junio get "mad" here, even in discussions with you were I think most other people would indeed have gotten "mad" at you. He stays remarkably polite, despite the insults and dirt you keep flinging at him... If at all, it would seem that you are getting mad at Junio. > >> Contributors often make sensible counter-arguments and/or explain >> the rationale better than they did in their original messages, and >> then receive a "Thanks for a dose of sanity" (or an equivalent >> phrased in different ways). > > Yes, when there's an agreement, so you are basically proving what I said. I > disagree with you, you disagree with me, and that means I'm the problem. Actually, it is more like this: "Felipe disagrees with Junio, Junio disagrees with Felipe, Felipe insults Junio and in passing half a dozen other people." It is the latter point which makes the situation asymmetric, and indeed indicates you as the problem. > In any healthy collaborative project that simply means there was a > disagreement, and that's that. If your premise was correct (that there is simply a disagreement), then this conclusion might be correct. As it is, though, your premise is false. The problem is rather a disruptive person: you. Quite sad, since you seem to have some good ideas and code contributions! I am in particular grateful for your work on remote helpers, both on specific ones (git-remote-hg) and also on improving the whole remote helper interface. I hope some of this work can eventually be merged... But at the end of the day, we most (all?) of us here are volunteers, and unlike what you seem to claim a lot, for most of us, making git better is *not* the number 1 priority in our lives... In particular, if working with you would make git better, but at the same time would give me ulcers, well, my choice is clear to me... Perhaps it wouldn't be best for git, but I don't think anybody (except, perhaps, you) would blame me for it. Or, for that matter, Junio. @Junio: Thank you for being an opinionated but also very fair project lead, who listens to *constructive* feedback, and has again and again demonstrated through action a readiness to revise a position based on sensible discussions conducted on this list. Max
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail