Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Felipe Contreras
> <> wrote:
> > Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Felipe Contreras
> >> > You think changing the execution bit of a file is considered "activity"?
> >>
> >> Well, now we're getting into semantics, which I don't care so much
> >> about.
> >
> > Convenient.
> Yeah, the part above here goes in my "don't argue with idiots, they'll
> drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"-filter.
> Good luck trying to convince *anyone* with this line of argumentation.

It has been demonstrated that there is inactivity. The fact that your
semantics about "inactivity" differ from the rest of the world is

> >> It shows some sort of interest in the scripts, at least.
> >
> > Not it doesn't. Jonathan Nieder updated the execution bit on a bunch of
> > scripts in contrib, these being just in the way. It doesn't show
> > interest at all.
> >
> All of those changes relate to the MSVC-build. So it's not "just some
> batch-fixup" as you're trying to suggest.

It is a huge batch-fixup[1]. In fact he mentioned he tested it on
Debian, not Windows.

> > If you don't care that these scripts keep working properly, I don't see
> > why anybody else would.
> You're the one making up requirements for tests here, so this is your
> itch. This script gets fixed by it's stake-holders when it breaks, and
> that has worked out fine so far.

You are not interested in improving the quality of these scripts. Got

> > The script doesn't depend on the version of the Makefile, and proof of
> > that is that is has *never* been changed even though the Makefile has.
> Except it has, in 74cf9bd.

Once change in *four* years. My god! How are people ever going to keep
up with such amount of changes if it moves out-of-tree!


Felipe Contreras
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to