On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 2:39 AM Christian Brabandt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mi, 30 Dez 2020, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 3:05 PM Bram Moolenaar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 1:22 PM Christian Brabandt <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Am 30.12.2020 um 20:07 schrieb Felipe Contreras > > > > > > <[email protected]>:
> > > > The vim project simply doesn't do what the Git project does; give > > > > attribution. > > > > > > You appear to only look at Github. > > > > I'm most definitely not. I'm looking at git: > > > > git -C git shortlog -n --no-merges -s v2.29.0..v2.30.0 > > > > That gives me 83 contributors. for a period of 2 months. > > git is irrelevant here. No it isn't. The Git project knows very well how to use the git tool. The vim project doesn't. The Git project gives attribution to each and every person that submits a patch and it's accepted. The vim project doesn't. > > git -C vim shortlog -n --no-merges -s v8.1.0000..v8.2.0 > > > > That gives me 2 contributors, for a period of more than 2 years. > > > > 2500 Bram Moolenaar > > 1 Christian Brabandt > > As has been mentioned, the --author is not used here. Naturalistic fallacy again. Yes, it's not used. It should be used. > > > That is just one of the many places where software development > > > happens. And one of the many ways software development can be done. > > > > GitHub is not a software development "way"; it's a code hosting > > provider, and I'm not even looking at it. > > > > > There is no "one right way". Just popular > > > and less popular ways, and it changes over time. > > > > No. There are objectively better and worse ways of doing things. > > objective by what standards? That is the debate. > And who are you to dictate what workflows are used by a project that > is 30 years old? I am not dictating anything. I am *arguing* one way is objectively better than another way. Either I'm right, or I'm not, but I'm providing arguments. "This is the way it is" is not an argument. > > For example; we are replying in interleaved style [1], but some people > > use top-posting. Do you think both styles are equally "right"? Or is > > one way objectively better than the other? > > That is an interesting question. Because the interleaved style has lost > already Lost what? Truth is not a popularity contest. An objectively inferior way of doing things can be the most popular. No conflict there. > You may not like it, but it is by no means the "objective" better way. Popularity has no bearing on what's objectively better. The Earth is objectively round regardless of how many people believe so. -- Felipe Contreras -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/CAMP44s2OmaU3MUtwOvxNjaHL-FS4xTN4ciXiui5nYSbjT-0NMQ%40mail.gmail.com.
