On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:05 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
This is my original statement: > Moreover you start from the assumption that people would automatically assume > unread messages are not included in this limit, and I think it would be the > opposite for most people. This is a factual statement, remove that assumption from your mind and you would see that ExpireUnread is not an intuitive name. A person sets MaxMessages expecting that *all* messages would be limited (as any normal person would do), that's not happening by default, so that person looks for an option to truly limit all messages, skipping ExpireUnread because it obviously has nothing to do with MaxMessages. Alas, you obviously can't remove that assumption from your head. >> >> >> 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*. You must not understand how the burden of proof works; whomever makes the claim has the burden of proof. You make a claim, you have the burden of proof. If the government says it's not spying on citizens, it has the burden of proof by making that claim, even though it is the government. >> >> > 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. What effect does expiring mail has on uni-directional synchronization? >> 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. No, the fact that it doesn't make any sense at all in English (and many other languages for that matter) is what justifies expressions like that. The above makes it clear that your previous statement is wrong: > i for one find the association quite natural, and clearly i'm not > alone with that - the term is fairly established in this context. >> >> >> 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: You assume that your useless statements are backed up by the arguments that I already shut down but you can't see. It seems you are not only not accepting the possibility that your arguments might be wrong, you are incapable of imagining that possibility. >>> > 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"? I call that not touching, but running away from it. Let's say that you "touched" it, if you did so, it was barely. It doesn't matter what you *think* is the case, but what *actually* is the case. Limit is better, because a) messages don't "cease to be" on certain configurations, they remain there b) the relevant rules (MaxMessages, MaxAges) are limits, and the users would see them as limits, therefore LimitUnread is tightly related. >> >> >> [...] 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. You must not understand what ad hominem means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem I'm not saying your argument is wrong because it's coming from you, and there are bad aspects of yourself, thus I'm not engaging in ad hominem. >> > 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 hope that makes you very happy; nobody else cares. Since you are keen on listing logical fallacies; by bringing this up you are engaging in this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias > 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! I have an open mind, and that's demonstrable by the facts that: a) I have changed the proposed name in a number of times, in fact, I have proposed multiple of them. How many times have you done that? How many names have you proposed? b) I urged for feedback from other minds. If my mind is in fact closed, the opinions of other people that are contrary to mine would be a strong indicator that this is the case. Since I have proposed multiple names, and I welcome the opinions of others, that pretty much proves I have an open mind. Since you haven't changed your proposal a single time, and you don't welcome the opinions of other people, that pretty much settles that your mind is entirely closed. Unless you are prepared to allow some kind of voting I say there's no point in discussing; it's blatantly obvious you are not looking for a good name, you are merely looking for excuses to support the name you *ALREADY* chose. -- Felipe Contreras ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
