On 16/07/16 13:51, Florin Pățan wrote: > Thank you for bringing up my condition, I'll make sure I treat it, it > sounds like something dangerous (nice insult by the way).
This is ridiculous. Now you're even making things up: the DKE is not a mental/health condition or a disease, but it's just a specific form of bias; DKE means you're drawing wrong conclusions about something, or someone, without having a proper knowledge about that 'something', or 'someone', due to personal biases. That phrase of mine only meant that you're assuming too much about my person and my knowledge on the topic of reproducible builds. Nothing else. If you want to learn more about DKE, I suggest the original peer-review paper from 1999: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=1999-15054-002 It's a fascinating lecture. Apart from that, seriously, please stop jumping to conclusions and to stir up controversy for the sake of it. > Dave has explained his own reasons about this while unfortunately > ignoring some aspects which actually are crucial. > The distinguishing factor between gb and other solutions is that it > allows for organizing projects into individual workspaces, which for > some is useful. However this means that now I'm forced to use it if I > want to compile a Go app, which is in opposition with using the standard > Go tools to do it (yes, I'm sure you can probably workaround it and > still compile it). [...] I don't care. If you have problems with Gb, or the way it is implemented, please go and complain with Cheney. I'm pretty sure he will be happy to receive constructive criticism from you. Barking at me won't solve your issues with Gb. > - you cannot provide arguments for why gb solves any of this while other > tools don't [...] Please, stop taunting me with your non-sense. I've already told you that the explanation to that question is available into Gb's documentation (and it's written in a simple and clear way). Actually, all the technical choices made by Cheney are discussed and documented as RFCs; all you have to do is to read them. I WON'T repeat them here, because I'm not interested in a technical discussion about Gb's pros and cons, and I don't have time for these kind of silly skirmishes about topics that should never be controversial in the first place. I'm not here to prove a point, or promoting my own PM, oppositely to you. Package managers, and reproducible builds, have already been discussed ad nauseam in this ML, and I'm not going to start a new one; the search function of Google Groups is there to help you dig all those past discussions and unravel the mystery. But feel free to pick up a new challenger, if you really must have bouts for championships; I won't stop you ;) > Also, I was asking for an explanation on why this is different because > I'm too stupid to understand it but I guess I'll remain as such since I > still don't have an explanation for it after all this exchange. [...] See my previous comment about RFCs wrote by Cheney; there is no need to repeat myself for a third time, isn't it? > P.S. See why I said this is controversial? I only see someone who desperately craves for this topic to be controversial. I surely don't. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
