On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:16:51AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > The only absurd thing here is your message, the comment wasn't > directed at you, so it would be nice if you didn't speak for Jeremy; > if Jeremy felt offended, then he can talk to me directly.
I stand up for others when I feel they have been wronged, as I hope others would do for me. > Jeremy's mail was `darcs does this, tla sucks at this'. Yeah, minus the 'tla sucks at this' part. Honestly, how did you read that from his message? He didn't even mention tla. > I do not call that that `disucssing design', since it doesn't > explain why what darcs is better. It doesn't need to. The original post requested that functionality. He pointed out that darcs had it. *If* the original post's idea is found to have merit, then darcs' method *might* be a good one. Nowhere does this imply that darcs is better than tla. It simply has one feature that tla doesn't, and that tla could perhaps benefit from. I fail to see how this merits a rude "don't advertise here" response. Besides, as I mentioned, arch *has* this feature. It's just awkward, and not a part of tla proper. We could change that, if we could avoid descending into intolerant "don't post that here" meta-discussions. I for one support any convenient way to split out changes in a tree. Mind you, I'm not sure darcs' is the best way, since it forgoes independent testing of what the committer is committing. > I will refrain from commenting any more with people who has such > problems reading something so simple, and are suffering from > schizophrenia. How convenient for you.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
