May be because they (LKM) are more open to such architectural and
organization refactorings?
Some maintainers, like Greg Kroah-Hartman and possibly others accept
clean up patches, such thing seems to be unacceptable here on git.
Looks like there is space here only for features and bug fixes.
On 2013-06-09 13:01:30 -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
You don't agree that 1) a collegial work environment is overrated, 2)
that the Linux kernel doesn't put an emphasis on being collegial, or
3) that it's the most successful software project in history?
Point 1.
Good, so we agree
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2013-06-09 13:01:30 -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
You don't agree that 1) a collegial work environment is overrated, 2)
that the Linux kernel doesn't put an emphasis on being collegial, or
3) that it's the most
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
One example of killing the entire thread is when I see This patch
will not be applied by Felipe in a thread started with his patch.
I understand that it is his way to
On 06/10/2013 07:15 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Stefano Lattarini
stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote:
I do accuse Felipe's *attitude* to bring on and nourish such
unpleasantness toxicity. His technical merits and the possible
qualities of his patches do
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
One example of killing the entire thread is when I see This patch
will not be applied by Felipe
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
E.g.
convincing people that it is not worth their time interacting with
you, especially when there are better things to do like tending
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Stefano Lattarini
stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote:
You need two sides to have an argument.
I disagree. Unless you mean than, whenever a part behaves in a
hostile and aggressive way, the other part should just silently
knuckle under.
You are wrong. If a
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
It is not bad behavior. It is bad behavior *in your opinion*,
And in essentially everyone else on this list, it seems.
an opinion that wouldn't be shared by other projects, like the Linux
kernel.
Googling your name and LKML gives me this
Matthieu Moy wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/12/434
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/15/112
We don't want things taken out of context now, do we? Follow up this
thread [1], if you're interested in that discussion. I did clip out
the quotes you chose on purpose, in the interest of presenting
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Stefano Lattarini
stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote:
You need two sides to have an argument.
I disagree. Unless you mean than, whenever a part behaves in a
hostile and
Yes, sorry. I find this whole story quite amusing (albeit distracting
and unnecessary), but sorry for adding to the spam. I'll be quiet now.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Martin Langhoff
martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk
martinv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Stefano Lattarini
stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote:
You need two sides to have an argument.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Matthieu Moy
matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
It is not bad behavior. It is bad behavior *in your opinion*,
And in essentially everyone else on this list, it seems.
So? An opinion shared by a billion
Jeff King wrote:
Sorry that I cannot show you the source code, but you may interested to
know that libgit2 powers:
Yes, I'm well aware of these: libgit2 is LGPL, because of which these
three proprietary applications have been made possible. Isn't it
completely orthogonal to the discussion
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 09:20:54AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Let the code speak. Show me a script in any language that does
something useful using libgit2, doing the equivalent to at least a
couple of 'git foo' commands.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 09:17:56PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Definitely, yes. Even if you look at the impact on code alone and
don't care about the people, destroying a collegial work environment
is harmful enough to the
Jeff King wrote:
Definitely, yes. Even if you look at the impact on code alone and
don't care about the people, destroying a collegial work environment
is harmful enough to the code to outweigh the (admittedly often
useful) patches.
A collegial work environment is overrated, and proof
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff King wrote:
Definitely, yes. Even if you look at the impact on code alone and
don't care about the people, destroying a collegial work environment
is harmful enough to the code to outweigh the (admittedly
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 07:15:45AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Sorry, but I don't agree, and I want to publicly state my opinion so
that Jonathan (and other bystanders on the list) knows that he is not
alone in his opinions.
You don't agree that 1) a collegial work environment is
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 09:17:56PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Definitely, yes. Even if you look at the impact on code alone and
don't care about the people, destroying a
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 03:28:48PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Jeff King wrote:
Sorry that I cannot show you the source code, but you may interested to
know that libgit2 powers:
Yes, I'm well aware of these: libgit2 is LGPL, because of which these
three proprietary applications
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch wrote:
You have a tendency, when facing arguments by someone who does not agree
with you, of picking out one (usually minor) point of their statement
and attacking just *that* on grounds that are usually much harder to
argue,
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 06:18:51PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
I have consistently found your demeanor on the list to be very
unfriendly and difficult to work with. It is one thing to have honest
and straight talk, and another thing to be obstinate, unmindful of
feedback (both with
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 03:28:48PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Jeff King wrote:
Sorry that I cannot show you the source code, but you may interested to
know that libgit2 powers:
Yes, I'm well aware of these: libgit2 is
Jeff King wrote:
I already mentioned elsewhere that I think it would be fine to massage
libgit.a in that direction. I even joined the conversation pointing out
some cases where Felipe's ruby module would break. But I do not think
that moving code in and out of libgit.a is an important first
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 01:01:30PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Sorry, but I don't agree, and I want to publicly state my opinion so
that Jonathan (and other bystanders on the list) knows that he is not
alone in his opinions.
You don't agree that 1) a collegial work environment is
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff King wrote:
I already mentioned elsewhere that I think it would be fine to massage
libgit.a in that direction. I even joined the conversation pointing out
some cases where Felipe's ruby module would break. But
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 01:01:30PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
I do not have an interest in cataloguing past conflicts I and others
have had with you; the list archive has done so.
No. There is no such catalog. You made a
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 11:36:42PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Jeff King wrote:
I already mentioned elsewhere that I think it would be fine to massage
libgit.a in that direction. I even joined the conversation pointing out
some cases where Felipe's ruby module would break. But I do
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 11:36:42PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Jeff King wrote:
I already mentioned elsewhere that I think it would be fine to massage
libgit.a in that direction. I even joined the conversation pointing
Jeff King wrote:
I actually think word choice and politeness is only a small part of it,
and one that I live without. It is not just _how_ something is said,
but _what_ is said. And sometimes what is said does not lead in a
productive direction. I found Thomas's comment here:
Jeff King wrote:
Sorry, I don't have patches. It is a hard problem for which I do not
have the solution, which is kind of my point.
So, what is the problem? We are moving towards what we think is the
way forward. Nobody said that it is the theoretical best, but it's
_much_ better than doing
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:02:11AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
This is all very good, Jeff. Various people have expressed what's
wrong with fc's demeanour, tone, and style of discussion in
various different ways at various different points in time. This goes
on and on and on with no
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff King wrote:
I actually think word choice and politeness is only a small part of it,
and one that I live without. It is not just _how_ something is said,
but _what_ is said. And sometimes what is said does not
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:14:36AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Jeff King wrote:
Sorry, I don't have patches. It is a hard problem for which I do not
have the solution, which is kind of my point.
So, what is the problem? We are moving towards what we think is the
way forward.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
Go back to my 261 commits, show me one that is unmindful of technical
details.
And you say this thread is an excellent example of your point that
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
Jeff King wrote:
I actually think word choice and politeness is only a small part of it,
and one that I live without. It is not just _how_ something is said,
but _what_ is said. And sometimes what is said does not lead in a
productive
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Johan Herland jo...@herland.net wrote:
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
Go back to my 261 commits, show me one that is unmindful of technical
Thomas Rast wrote:
The arguments arise to a large degree from attempting to review his
work. Not doing so is not an option, see e.g.:
I don't recall saying that you shouldn't review his work (?). What I
_am_ saying is that there is absolutely no point belaboring over
what's wrong with
Jeff King wrote:
My advice would be to ignore him when the discussion proceeds in an
unproductive direction.
There is something appealing about that option. The problem is that
it doesn't work, at least for someone that relies on the list as a way
of understanding patches that have been
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/225969
This is a good example of an evolving discussion. René Scharfe has
accepted that the API indeed needs work. How exactly it's going to be
fixed is not
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff King wrote:
Of course that's not the intent: the intent of ignoring someone is to
hope they'll go away. :)
In the context of other unhealthy behaviors (like alcoholism) there is
a concept of enabling behavior.
On 06/09/2013 09:11 PM, Johan Herland wrote:
[...]
FWIW, I'd like to express my support for the opinions expressed by
Jonathan, Jeff and Thomas. They accurately describe my impression of
these discussion threads.
I also agree. In my opinion, Felipe, your abrasiveness, your disregard
of
[Sorry for the full quote, but sometimes, repetita iuvant]
On 06/09/2013 11:42 PM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
On 06/09/2013 09:11 PM, Johan Herland wrote:
[...]
FWIW, I'd like to express my support for the opinions expressed by
Jonathan, Jeff and Thomas. They accurately describe my impression of
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
Felipe, I wish that you would devote a small fraction of your prodigious
energy to the very difficult challenge of feeling empathy,
I do feel empathy, the problem is that you make the assumption that
other people are
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Stefano Lattarini
stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote:
I do accuse Felipe's *attitude* to bring on and nourish such
unpleasantness toxicity. His technical merits and the possible
qualities of his patches do *nothing* to remove or quell such
issues.
How
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
This code is only useful for cherry-pick and revert built-ins, nothing
else, so let's make it a builtin object, but make sure 'git-sequencer'
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
This code is only useful for cherry-pick and revert
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Felipe Contreras
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com
Duy Nguyen wrote:
until libgit.a == libgit2. Done.
Read up about the introduction of libgit2, why it was created in the
first place instead of moving a few files around renaming libgit.a to
libgit2.a. Unless you have a different definition of == than I do.
As far as I know, there was never
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote:
Duy Nguyen wrote:
until libgit.a == libgit2. Done.
Read up about the introduction of libgit2, why it was created in the
first place instead of moving a few files around renaming libgit.a to
libgit2.a. Unless you
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Felipe Contreras
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
So instead of redoing it again, I think it's better that you help
libgit2 guys improve it to the extend that git commands can be easily
reimplemented. Then bring up the discussion about using libgit2 in C
Git again.
There's
Duy Nguyen wrote:
I _think_ the reason is because git was never written as a reusable
library in mind from the beginning.
We cannot reverse-engineer intents, but I tend to agree with this. My
question is: so what? Is it impossible to do now?
So global states and die() exist.
Worse, run
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote:
Duy Nguyen wrote:
I _think_ the reason is because git was never written as a reusable
library in mind from the beginning.
We cannot reverse-engineer intents, but I tend to agree with this. My
question is: so
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not saying that we can convert libgit.a into something that's
usable as a long-running process by production servers tomorrow. All
I'm saying is that it might be possible to get ruby (and possibly
other
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
Do we want to
freeze libgit.a API so that scripts will not be audited and changed
unncessarily?
No. Until we ship libgit.so the API remains internal, and free to change.
I still think that binding new languages to a clean
Duy Nguyen wrote:
libgit.a is just a way of grouping a bunch of objects together, not a
real library and not meant to be. If you aim something more organized,
please show at least a roadmap what to move where.
Exactly. There are some rough plans I would like to help with in the
direction of
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Duy Nguyen wrote:
libgit.a is just a way of grouping a bunch of objects together, not a
real library and not meant to be. If you aim something more organized,
please show at least a roadmap what to move where.
Felipe Contreras wrote:
This has nothing to do with better strategy, it has everything to do
with gut feelings and tradition. Not reasons.
I try to help you, and you insult me. I don't think this is worth it.
If I were managing this list, I would ban mails from you, since this
discussion
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
This has nothing to do with better strategy, it has everything to do
with gut feelings and tradition. Not reasons.
I try to help you, and you insult me. I don't think this is worth it.
I
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
If I were managing this list, I would ban mails from you, since this
discussion style does more harm than good.
There is a nice motto around: Talk is cheap. Show me the code.
Just the past three months I've probably
Felipe Contreras wrote:
Just the past three months I've probably done more work than anybody
else[1], and you would ban me because you don't like my words?
Definitely, yes. Even if you look at the impact on code alone and
don't care about the people, destroying a collegial work environment
is
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
Just the past three months I've probably done more work than anybody
else[1], and you would ban me because you don't like my words?
Definitely, yes. Even if you look at the impact on code alone
Felipe Contreras wrote:
A collegial work environment is overrated, and proof of that the Linux
kernel, where honest and straight talk is the bread and butter of the
mailing list.
An aside, since it doesn't bear too much on the topic at hand:
For what it's worth, in my experience the people
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
A collegial work environment is overrated, and proof of that the Linux
kernel, where honest and straight talk is the bread and butter of the
mailing list.
An aside, since it doesn't bear too
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 09:20:54AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Let the code speak. Show me a script in any language that does
something useful using libgit2, doing the equivalent to at least a
couple of 'git foo' commands.
Sorry that I cannot show you the source code, but you may
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 09:17:56PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Definitely, yes. Even if you look at the impact on code alone and
don't care about the people, destroying a collegial work environment
is harmful enough to the code to outweigh the (admittedly often
useful) patches.
A
This code is only useful for cherry-pick and revert built-ins, nothing
else, so let's make it a builtin object, but make sure 'git-sequencer'
is not generated.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com
---
Makefile | 9 ++---
sequencer.c =
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
This code is only useful for cherry-pick and revert built-ins, nothing
else, so let's make it a builtin object, but make sure 'git-sequencer'
is not generated.
As you can see, the convention is builtin/foo.c
72 matches
Mail list logo
