On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 5:34 AM Konstantin Khomoutov <kos...@bswap.ru> wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 04:21:30PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > [...] > > > For completeness, there's the link to a message which can be served as an > > > entry point to a different view on these matters which is also present in > > > the > > > Git developers' community [7]. > > > > > > I should note that I do not have a strong opinion on this situation (or at > > > least I do not have an opinion I'd like to share) - merely trying to make > > > it > > > possible to be able to see a more complete picture for those who finds it > > > interesting. > > > > > > 7. > > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20230511012558.ga1464...@coredump.intra.peff.net/ > > > > Needless to say these are Jeff King's *opinions*, these are not facts. > [...] > > Sadly they can't focus on the technical discussion. > [...] > > I should have probably explicitly stated in my mail that I do not expect any > responses to it.
My response was not necessarily to you, but for the record. You responded to paint a "more complete picture for those who finds it interesting", well, I did the same thing: for those who find that whole situation interesting, I provided context that I think is important. > My view of the situation is mostly as follows: you post an > announcement mail which prominently states that such and such > high-profile Git developers are wrong, and you're right I did not do that. I provided objective claims that can be verified. When I say Junio is the *only* git developer against the term "staging area", that's not an "opinion", that's a fact. It can be verified, and I provided all the receipts in my blog post, for those who actually want to verify it. When I say the Git PLC did not allow me to defend myself, that's also a fact, not an opinion. I was very conscious of not stating opinions in my announcement. I did not even claim that the Git PLC or even Junio were wrong. > I merely wanted to make the opinions of "the other side" to be more visible - > simply because you have made your announcement on a mailing list which remains > blissfully unaware of those wars fought. I have explicitly stated that I do > not want to take any side in these issues - merely make both positions sort of > equally presented to those who might be interested to learn more. I did not expect you to take any side or even respond. My intention was to provide context that in my opinion is important. And yes, I attached a few opinions in my response to you, which I feel I'm entitled to have. But ultimately it's up to people to judge by themselves if they want to read all the relevant context or not. > Hence, please also refrain from reiterating your point: I think it has > already been documented there quite extensively. I disagree. There is not one point, there's several dozens of points. Most of those I haven't even written about. Conflicts between people are complex, which is why lawsuits take so long. The particular point of the libgit.a discussion in 2013 is not something I had already documented, so I'm not reiterating it, especially not here. My intention is not to flood the mailing list or reiterate anything. If nobody responds anymore, neither would I. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/git-users/CAMP44s0u643UwArfYVh741MX%2Bme6zn8JOQ3MG6JET9YHO%3DHiag%40mail.gmail.com.
