On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Felipe Contreras
> Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Felipe Contreras
>> <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> 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
>> > 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!
It's rather amusing to see you react to my definition of "activity",
when you seem to have a rather unusual definition of "never"...
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