On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 06:36:52PM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 04:29:01AM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 02:35:44PM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> You said this: > >> > >> >> >> >> > - i didn't want to change the default behavior > >> > >> That's a red herring. The default behavior wouldn't change either way. > >> > > your original complaint was about defaulting to preserving unread messages. > > given that, i don't see how your last statement could make any sense. > > No it wasn't, you misunderstood. > if your original statement is not an implicit objection to the default, then it is simply an irrelevant statement - the name i gave the option is not suggestive of the "polarity", so the default is, indeed, orthogonal to the name.
> >> >> What does that even mean? [...] > >> >> > >> > are you actually lacking the language background, or are you just being > >> > contrarian for the sake of it? > >> > >> Neither, it doesn't make any sense. > >> > > making assertions doesn't get you anywhere. > > Then stop doing that. You keep saying it's "quite natural", and a "perfect > fit". > the difference is that it does get *me* somewhere: i'm the maintainer. the burden of evidence is on *you*. > >> > i for one find the association quite natural, and clearly i'm not > >> > alone with that - the term is fairly established in this context. > >> > >> Show me the evidence. Show me one instance where expire is used to > >> refer to exclude something from a working set. > >> > > this is *precisely* what mbsync does: > > http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/gnus/Expiring-Mail.html > > No it's not. What Gnus does is expiring messages in the English sense; > that is; it's "ending" them, after a period of time. > which, in the case of uni-directional synchronization (cf., fetchmail), just happens to have *precisely* the same effect. > It is *not* using "expire" to exclude message from a working set, > which is precisely what I asked for. > if you think that this distinction justifies expressions like "doesn't make any sense" and "What the f*ck is that", then you really should reconsider some of your basic assumptions. > >> >> And at no point in time are you even touching LimitUnread. > >> >> > >> > actually, i did. right in the previous message. > >> > >> No, you didn't. > >> > > i wonder how you are reconciling this statement with reality, given that > > it can be trivially shown to be false. > > Stop making useless statements, show me *EXACTLY* where you touched > LimitUnread. > because you are clearly incapable, too lazy, or even too malicious to look for a relevant quote despire repeated assurances that it is there: >> > Plus if you don't think that's clear, it could be called LimitUnread. >> > >> it could be. i still think Expire is better, because it is more specific >> (something first is, then ceases to be, as opposed to just being somehow >> restricted). so how exactly does that not qualify as "touching"? > >> >> [...] you made your mind and you are simply defending what you > >> >> already decided and no argument is going to change your mind. > >> >> > >> > or maybe your arguments just aren't that convincing. ;) > >> > >> If that was the case you wouldn't have any problem with a vote. > >> > > i'm not sure why you think that democratic principles are desirable > > (hint: this is a meritocracy) or practical (how to determine a > > representative constituency?) in this situation. > > Aha! your falsehood is shown here. > this game is called Gotcha! it's a distraction, fallacious, an ad-hominem, and generally destructive. it's a hallmark of trolls. > > as far as i'm concerned, you already crossed the line from > > bikeshedding to trolling. think *hard* before your next reply. > > And as far as I'm concerned you have proved that you have your mind > tightly shut about the name and would not consider any argument, nor > the opinion of any other person. > the first appearance of the term "expire" in the code dates back to commit e02975e8889 straight 12 years ago. that addition involved the opinion of two people to start with. when i took over development a year later, i adopted the term without much thinking, because it is, in fact, entirely natural. i think i have a pretty good standing here, and the one who could use an open mind is *you*. now bring up something substantial, or stop f*****g wasting my time! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shape the Mobile Experience: Free Subscription Software experts and developers: Be at the forefront of tech innovation. Intel(R) Software Adrenaline delivers strategic insight and game-changing conversations that shape the rapidly evolving mobile landscape. Sign up now. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=63431311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ isync-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/isync-devel
