On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 06:41:41AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > And I hazard to guess that the vast majority agree with Junio on this > > (based, > > again, on email evidence). Not with you. > > That is irrelevant, and a fallacy. The vast majority of people thought the > Earth was the center of the universe, and they were all wrong. > > It's called ad populum fallacy, look it up. Wether the majority of Git > developers agree that there's something more than a disagreement is > irrelevant, > their opinion doesn't change the truth.
Look, the problem is that you insist on being "right", even on matters which may be more about taste and preference than anything that can be proven mathematically. Worse, you insist on trying to convince people even when it might be better to just give up and decide that maybe something not's worth the effort to get the last word in. This is how we get to centithreads. If every time someone disagrees, you insist on replying, and then if people give up in disgust, you then try to use that as "proof" that you must be right, since you've dazzled them with your brilliance, that's not good for the development community. Sometimes a question is important enough that it's worth doing this. But I'd suggest to you that you should ask yourself whether you're doing it too often. After all, this is open source. If you are convinced that you are right, and everyone else in the community is wrong, it is within your power to fork the code base, and to prove us wrong by creating a better product. Or you can decide to just keep a patch set to yourself, or perhaps post it periodically, if it is some key feature that you are certain you or your company can't live with out. Heck, I've done this with ext4, even though I'm the maintainer --- there have been features that I know are critical for my company, but the rest of the ext4 development community are stridently against. I've just simply posted the patch set once, and if it gets strongly opposed, I'll just keep it as a out-of-tree patch. The fallocate NO_HIDE_STALE flag is a good example of that; it's used in production on thousands and thousands of servers by Google and Tao Bao, but since there was strong opposition on the ext4 list, we've kept it as an out-of-tree patch. Note what I did not do. I did not force the patch in, even though it might be within my power as the maintainer; nor did I try to convince people over and OVER and OVER again about the rightness of my position, and turn it into a centithread. > My claim is that all I did was disagree with Junio. You can invalidate that > claim easily by providing *a single* example where I did more than disagree. The problem is when you disagree with a number of people (not just Junio), and you are, in my opinion, overly persistent. We can argue whether you've stepped over the line in terms of impugning people's motives or sanity, but that's not necessarily the most important issue. People sometimes step over the line, and while that's unfortunate, it's when it becomes a persistent pattern, and it happens frequently enough, that it becomes a real problem. Alternatively, if you are right that Junio is mad, and he's being capriciously insulting, then I'm sure that when you establish your own fork, lots of developers will come flocking to your flag. If they do not, then perhaps you might want to take that as some objective evidence that the community is perhaps, more willing to work with him, then they are to work with you. Best regards, - Ted P.S. There are plenty of things that I consider to be unfortunate about git's command line interface, in terms of inconsistencies and confusing terminology. Over the past 5+ years, I've observed that I think the way commit selection in "git format-patch" is inconsistent with how we handle commit selection for other commands, e.g., "git log <commit>" vs and "git format-patch <commit>". Even if you think that this is a matter of self-inherent "truth", versus just a matter of taste, there is also the consideration of backwards compatibility, and the question of how important consistency and easy of learning gets traded off against backwards compatibility and invalidating potentially huge numbers of shell scripts and documentation. So it's not something where I've made a nuisance of myself, because it's a settled issue. As another example, people have agreed for a long time that the fact that tab characters are significant in Makefiles is highly unfortunate. However, no one is running around calling the GNU Make maintainers "insane" for not being willing to make a change that would break huge numbers of Makefiles in the world. More importantly, people aren't brining up the same subject over and over and over again on the GNU Makefile mailing list. Perhaps you might consider what would be the appropriate response if someone insisteted on creating centithreads on the GNU Makefile discuss list on that subject. -- 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