Chad Perrin wrote: > > If you use bleeding edge versions, you should already be prepared to deal > with changes in behavior. I don't see the problem. >
I help write the "bleeding edge" versions. Therefore, it is useful that I run them on a daily basis as well. > > There will always be someone disenfranchised. The question is whether we > should disenfranchise people who are very, very bad at software > management, or disenfranchise people who want their software to work in a > reasonable manner. > I would just like to point out here that, contrary to your assertion to the contrary, I do care about other people besides myself in this matter. > > Show me where I "demonized" anyone. I didn't imply people are stupid, > the way some emails opposed to changing `rm` and `mv` have. I didn't say > people were morally reprehensible, acting maliciously to make others' > lives difficult. I just asked about whether the primary priority should > be for people who don't care enough about their work to pay attention to > their tools. > It's very subtle, but it's there. To quote, "someone who will never pay attention to warnings". Out of curiousity, how many warnings given by software do *YOU* routinely ignore (e.g. web site security, etc)? > > . . . except that, given your reactions to some of the other things I > said, you seem inclined to take statements as insults when they obviously > are not intended as insults, so the problem isn't really solved on your > end. Right? > After having read several of your previous posts to others on this list, including several containing insults, it seemed to be a fair assumption. > > That seems like another implementation detail. > I'm not sure how to respond to this. Yes, changes to software do require changing the implementation. -- Joe Mistachkin _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
