Am 27.01.2014 02:11, schrieb Chris Murphy: >> i only just warned about cases where a rollback would do harm and to *make sure* that really no one would >> do it without take care > > That was my *entire* point going back around 36 hours ago and that is why i do not understand your turn around 180 degree against Simo and me beause *we both supported* your initial viewpoint until you started to claim all the cases are invalid > I did in fact state your examples were FUD with no reason to do so > Where the flaming starts is when you said "blabla - nobody talks about the mailserver" > when Simo *had* just mentioned server side changes which is what I was responding to hmpf - read again - "server side changes" != "mailservers" after that you told about Apple Mail and what not and then switeched to mailservers my problem was that you truned 180 degree and fighted against any argument going in the direction where restore of snapshots may be tricky and dangerous while you orginally before the subject changed even said the same > And "blabla" is just f'n rude from the outset because i had already enough of the turn 180 degree around and your again and again argumentation about user documents and that they don't change their format while never said that with a single line > so yeah I'm going to be a bit of a dick when someone is a.) condescending, b.) says > no one said X when someone did in fact say X still: nobody said "mailserver", but forget it > and c.) deletes the reply where someone said X server side changes doe snot imply change *the format* how mails itself are stored > and d.) proceeds with a dozen emails about how I'm the one not paying attention when I > asked for context clarification and you decided to jump down my throat and it went > downhill quickly from there. then you maybe should have asked *only* about clarification instead start calling developers names if they would change the format of user documents which was *never* part of the context > I do mostly just monitor this list, for several years. When people jump on you, > are you quiet? no, but i am not a dickhead and listen if people telling me that talking about user documents is not any part of the discussion in case of downgrades and internal environment data of applications may have changed unnoticed > No, you jump right back and you argue like hell. So don't tell me that I > should be quiet, or how I should respond and if you really would look you have noticed a difference > From my perspective you were picking a fight if that would be true i have called you a lot of names in the public which i *really* avoided while with some replies you begged for it > so I decide to play along why? > and maybe mine was a little bit disproportionate of a response a little? come on! > but don't play victim just because you got burned please calm more down and re-read the whole thread including the point Simo even gave up completly to try explain you the context > Which is exactly why I've involved myself in a thread on snapshotting because > unlike you, I have been doing snapshots and rollbacks with LVM and Btrfs for > quite a few years. i statet that i do not use snapshots nor the graphical stuf fnor gnome to make clear *i am not affected* of any decision in that direction but *care* about others, otherwise the whole sub-thread would not have been relevant for me > I'm aware that there are some challenges that users will likely face and development > needs to account for these things so they aren't easily getting into trouble or confused > about where their data is. which was my whole point > Snapshots are a reality, simply sticking our head in the sand for a feature people > have been asking for is simply not the way forward. I am not suggesting at all that > your workflow should change to include snapshots, so I ask that you have the courtesy > to not claim with bad examples that snapshots generally are a bad idea that will hose > user's systems and make developers lazy and careless i did not say anything about snapshots in general the topic is "snapshots in case of updates and make it easy to roll them back" this needs *a lot of special care* that is my whole point > This is an entirely voluntary project, you are not required to participate in some > aspect of its technology you don't use and seem to not even care about sorry that i case about the project in general
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
