> Am 31.12.2020 um 18:01 schrieb Felipe Contreras <[email protected]>:
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 2:39 AM Christian Brabandt <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
Of course it is. Git is a different project. It is irrelevant for vim how git
organizes their project.
>
> The Git project gives attribution to each and every person that
> submits a patch and it's accepted. The vim project doesn't.
But not for Feedback. So what about that? Shouldn't those also be giving credit?
>
>>> 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.
Says you. Or you record credit in the commit message as has been done 30 years
ago, before git existed.
>
>>>> 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
Of course you do. Otherwise you could stop arguing here, since it is clear we
will not come to an agreement here. You keep on discussing until we change
something.
>
> 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.
You may not like it, but it is of course 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.
That is a fact. How people work may be different for each single one. That is
no objective fact. There are different ways of doing something, regardless of
what you call objectively better.
Christian
--
--
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/058FAEB2-3FF8-4A84-A4D7-29B9D667E3FC%40256bit.org.
