From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Zippel Subject: Re: Bizarre missing changes (git bug?) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:39:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <8502DF7C-5303-49E8-8C67-F837343E2F0C@gmail.com> <200807260512.40088.zippel@linux-m68k.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Tim Harper , git@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jul 29 13:41:05 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KNnZY-0000ey-Ee for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:40:56 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756051AbYG2Ljr (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:39:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756031AbYG2Ljq (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:39:46 -0400 Received: from smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl ([194.109.24.32]:3005 "EHLO smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756012AbYG2Ljq (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:39:46 -0400 Received: from squid.home (linux-m68k.xs4all.nl [82.95.193.92]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6TBdYK3060915 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:39:39 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from zippel@linux-m68k.org) X-X-Sender: roman@localhost.localdomain In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Mon, 28 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > You dismiss all my issues, and then you continue to talk about "correct", > even though it isn't a correctness thing - it's a difference of opinion. > Me, I *much* prefer the simplified history. That _is_ the correct one for > me. I'm not dismissing it, but your focus is on how to get this result. If the results were always the same, I wouldn't have a problem at all. That's why I'm trying to give you an example where the end result differs, how are we supposed to get to an agreement on _how_ to get the result, if we don't even agree on _what_ the result should be? > And quite frankly, I've seen that behaviour from you before, when it comes > to other things. What exact behaviour is that? That I dare to disagree with you? > So go away. Write the code. Come back with patches. If you knew me that well, you also knew that such threats don't work with me. In this case you know perfectly well, that I don't know the code as well as you, so without any help it would require a huge waste of time with the risk of rejection. bye, Roman