From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fetch: add missing documentation
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 02:54:54 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130924065454.GB7257@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s23FMeZP=xum1X9bvHuKVo=j8O=8_8DVNgXq9F7Cpsr7A@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 01:31:48AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > I don't think it is the end of the world if we say "upstream branch". I
> > was hoping to find a term that could be both friendly and accurate.
> >
> > And failing that, I hoped you might say "I see what you are saying, but
> > I cannot think of a term that is more precise that does not sacrifice
> > friendliness". But as I seem incapable of even communicating the issue
> > to you, I'm giving up. It is not worth wasting more time on it.
>
> And I was hoping you wouldn't use rhetorical warfare and label things
> as "inaccurate", "imprecise", "breadcrumbs".
FWIW, the term "breadcrumbs" was meant as a _good_ thing. I meant that
you are using a term that will link the user to other concepts that use
the same term (like "branch --set-upstream-to"), and that is something
we would like to keep.
As for the others, I find your accusation of rhetorical warfare
ridiculous. Insulting your patch with non-constructive insults would be
rhetorical. Saying "I think it has a flaw, here are my reasons, and I
hope we can come up with a solution that does not have that flaw without
weakening the other properties" is collaboration. Or an attempt at it
anyway.
I do not know why you and I have so much trouble communicating on even
basic things. I am willing to accept that it is entirely my fault. But
that does not change the fact that I often find it a waste of time, and
I plan to do less of it by ending my involvement in threads that seem to
be unproductive.
> At this porcelain level, branch.<name>.remote does not exist, so
> "upstream branch" is accurate. Period.
I do not agree with your first sentence at all. And your second one is
purely rhetorical.
I can elaborate if you really care, but I have a feeling you do not.
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-24 6:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-21 14:09 [PATCH 0/2] fetch: trivial fixes Felipe Contreras
2013-09-21 14:09 ` [PATCH 1/2] fetch: add missing documentation Felipe Contreras
2013-09-24 5:03 ` Jeff King
2013-09-24 5:23 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-24 5:30 ` Jeff King
2013-09-24 5:36 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-24 5:40 ` Jeff King
2013-09-24 5:57 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-24 6:10 ` Jeff King
2013-09-24 6:31 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-24 6:54 ` Jeff King [this message]
2013-09-24 7:41 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-21 14:09 ` [PATCH 2/2] remote: fix trivial memory leak Felipe Contreras
2013-09-24 5:19 ` Jeff King
2013-10-15 21:50 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130924065454.GB7257@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=felipe.contreras@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).