On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> wrote: > Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> wrote: >>Go back through those 30 posts you mentioned. Go back to the very >>first one from me. I tried to be concise and wrote just three >>paragraphs that, IMO, captured what was needed. I certainly did not >>say "I want git rebase in fossil" and then watched the fireworks -- >>no, I explained *concisely* (or at least that was my aim). > > No, you said "I want something slightly different than git rebase in fossil." > Concise? Yes. Precise? No. Well-defined? No. Useful? No.
I unsubscribed. I resubscribed to answer Joerg's very useful comment, and to address your insinuation that I've been trolling: >>If I had written a ten-page post explaining in excruciating detail >>[...] > > That depends on the goal. If you want to troll the list, then arguing for > rebase is a good choice. If you want fossil to incorporate a solution for > your problem, you should provide the information people are asking for. Given > how poorly your attempt to work with the comunity has gone, giving up now > isn't an unreasonable option. On the other hand, if you want to be able to > use fossil, and are willing to work with us to solve your problem instead of > arguing about what "rebase" does, you can start by answering our questions. I was going to let you have the last word, and, indeed, I will since I will re-unsubscribe shortly. But I feel I must at least address this insinuation that I was trolling. I think any reasonable human being reviewing this thread will conclude that I've been sincere. I've explained in detail, and I've answered the questions that have been raised, such as here: http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg10591.html and here: http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg10593.html I think those two posts in particular are quite detailed and informative. Nor did I know that bringing up rebase would arouse fury. I knew it was controversial, but not that it was anathema, and I thought I could make an argument for a variant of rebase that should fit within the fossil philosophy (and I still think so; e pur si muove). Thus my wading in here could not be considered trolling. If I were to not give up I might be trolling, but trust me, I give up (unless we hear from the project's principals anything supportive, or if they ask questions that I should answer). Trust me, I feel awful about filling unknown subscribers inboxes with my responses on this thread, and the responses those have elicited. I have found your responses to me to be hostile, and downright silly. I've also briefly reviewed the rm/mv thread and I find similar silliness there by various members of the community. I am frustrated, and I acknowledge that I've am having trouble hiding my frustration. But I do think that you have shown an utter lack of hospitality and open-mindedness. This is why I will now abandon Fossil, even though there are many ways in which I think Fossil is superior to the competition -- your hostility turns me off. > For instance, you haven't answered any of my questions. You've explained in > detail what rebase does, but that's irrelevant, because rebase is only an > approximation to what you want, and you haven't explained how what you want > is different in sufficient detail for us to figure out what that is. You > haven't shown us why the existing solutions are "to much work". You haven't > said what kind of interface you want (otherr than "interactive rebase", and > you haven't said what that interface looks like!). You may think you have, > but your opinion here doesn't matter: if we don't have a clear understanding > of what you want, we don't have it, and the onus is on you to provide it. The > best way to do that is by answering our questions. These two posts: http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg10591.html http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg10593.html answer your questions and explain in detail what I need to be able to do and why. Perhaps you missed them. You did respond once with this: http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg10602.html but you failed at reading comprehension, and by then I was ready to give up. But let me answer the one question you raise there: | I thought I did, but then you said "rebase works on one branch." | | Except... | | >So, if we have a branch called "trunk" with this history: | >A---B---C---D | >and a branch called "new-feature" with these commits | | Uh, that's *two* branches! What happened to rebase working on one branch? *git* rebase destructively affects ONE branch by making that one branch name point to a new line of commits that are not fast-forwards from the previous commit pointed to by that branch name. The rebase operation does additionally involve (read-only) an old base and new base commits. So, yes, rebase "works on" one branch. Rebase as a general concept works with: a) a line of commits (a branch), b) an old base of those commits (i.e., the parent of the oldest of the commits that will be rebased), c) a new base for the new commits. I did explain this. You simply failed to read or comprehend. I can't explain why, except that I suspect that your utter hostility blinded you to my explanation. > "rebase" is just a name. Forget it. Quit trying to convince us that "rebase" > is compatible with fossil. Show us that *what you want* is compatible with > fossil. Of course, that has to start with a *precise* description of what you > want, in fossil terms, not in git terms. Give us an *example*. Simplify it as > much as you can, but leave in all the features you want. Show us how you'd do > it with fossil now. Show us the commands you would like to have (and call > them TBD or some such), and how we would use them. Here you show your closed-mindedness: "Quit trying to convince us". Got it. You then immediately contradict yourself: "Show us that *what you want* is compatible with fossil". You also ask for precision, examples, but... simplification -- which is it? precision, or simplification? It may be a fault of mine, but I don't know how to do both. I did provide simplified examples in two posts linked above... And you say I should call some imaginary fossil command "TBD" because... you can't handle the word "rebase", I guess? If I post examples of what I want the behavior of a new fossil command to be, and I name that command "rebase", will you read them? or will you yell at me? And FYI, I did convince Michael Richter that rebase for private branches fits within the fossil philosophy here: http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg10597.html as I pointed out here: http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg10598.html Though I suppose he might now claim that I didn't quite convince him. But at least he has been open-minded enough to have a debate with me, to ask follow-up questions -- I very much appreciate his efforts. You are just openly hostile. Nico -- _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
