Tony Mechelynck, 28.02.2009:
>
> On 28/02/09 12:06, Markus Heidelberg wrote:
> > Tony Mechelynck, 28.02.2009:
> >> On 28/02/09 11:34, Markus Heidelberg wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> This debate is going nowhere. You won't change your mind, and neither
> >> shall I, so I'm shutting up.
> >
> > OK, do so, without having responded to the main argument a single time,
> > although I've reminded you. It seems you are running out of arguments.
> > Please put down your anti-git attitude and accept its usefulness,
> > at least in the case of the runtime updates.
> >
> > Markus
>
> What main argument?
I didn't want to repeat it for the third time, but since you don't
understand, here it is, copied from a former mail:
It doesn't work for runtime changes, which you HAVE to put into existing
files.
> That I should believe in git the way others believe
> in God?
Don't imply something to me, which I have never expressed.
> Well, I don't. What I have satisfies me -- and in the case of
> patches to the official runtime files, sooner or later (sometimes even
> before the patch is published) the official runtime repositories will
> acquire them, so that isn't a problem.
Yes, official patches are not a problem.
> _Un_official patches to runtime
> files, OTOH, should never be done under $VIMRUNTIME but brought out of
> it: in the case of *.vim files they should be moved, in modified form,
> to some tree early in 'runtimepath' so they will override the official
> file of the same name, and in the case of helpfiles, new helpfiles
> should be written, with new filenames, containing only the differences,
> and they should be put, not into $VIMRUNTIME/doc but into the doc/
> subdir of some other 'runtimepath' tree.
Fine, here finally is your response to the argument I was referring to
as the "main argument".
And you proposed solution is crap. Everytime the official runtime files
are updated, the patch has to be updated for his copied and modified
files as well, else it will go the other way round: the patch will
revert the official runtime updates (of course not in the source tree,
but in the result when using Vim), previously the official runtime
updates have reverted the runtime files from the patch.
> This procedure is compatible
> with all possible ways of updating runtime files, while yours requires
> converting to git.
That's wrong, my procedure is also doable for non-git users:
patch -R < your-custom.patch
update runtime files via rsync or ftp
patch < your-custom.patch
> Well, I believe in plurality of upgrade methods the
> way I believe in plurality of Windows compilers, in plurality of methods
> to achieve a given goal within Vim, or, outside of Vim, in plurality of
> human languages or in plurality of religious creeds. In the case of
> religion, I regard myself as a deist after having long been an agnostic,
> but I believe in liberty of religion: practice your own religion the way
> you want to, let me practice mine the way I do, and if the next guy
> wants to practice no religion at all, let's let him do so. Someday I'll
> tell you Aesop's fable "The Blind Men and the Elephant" and how I apply
> it to theologians (including amateur ones, i.e., everyday people) and God.
I thought you wanted to shut up!? Instead of this you are writing a
novel, talking about religion and Windows compilers.
Markus
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
