hasufell posted on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 01:18:49 +0000 as excerpted: > I am tired of talking to people who are unobjective. > > But to make it more clear to you: I don't think that removing shallow > clone support is an improvement, so I vote against removing it.
FWIW, I didn't get that from reading the thread, either. Not against something (your claim) isn't the same as being for it (what we find out here). People say my verbosity level needs turned down. Perhaps yours needs turned up. That said, while I didn't see any objections, what surprised me was the speed at which it happened. The RFC was posted early afternoon (my time) on a Friday. The commit was early evening on a Sunday. Not even an entire weekend. It seems to me that in the context of gentoo-dev, if one is really interested in the comments he has supposedly requested, giving a full week for comments is more traditional. There was no emergency here, and honestly, given the speed, the /appearance/ is that it was an effort to railroad it thru. That's said even tho I agree that full-clone should be the default and am neutral on shallow-clone functionality (as long as it doesn't interfere with my ability to set full-clone locally), so the changes themselves are good by me. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
