On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> And I'd like to think that when you filibuster a discussion there's a >> good reason for it. > > Kind other people on the list, please enlighten me. What did I say to > trigger this crap? You said "Because our completion scripts are already using this convention, which happens to come from bash-completion's guidelines and here are the reasons behind those", so their guidelines are not essential, only the reasons behind the guidelines, but: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/195685 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/195689 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/195691 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.shells.bash.completion.devel/3877 You could have skipped this, apparently it was not relevant for the discussion, it's not feedback for the patch, and the abrasiveness unnecessary. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/195719 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/195723 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/195737 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/195742 And more irrelevant bash-completion stuff, and then you even get angry when I suggest those guidelines were not there, but isn't supposed to be irrelevant? http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/195744 And then you finally assume that because I say the guidelines were not there, I must not like namespace conventions. I don't see how that helps in any way. So the discussion about whether bash-completion actually had public API guidelines or not took basically the whole thread, and barely anything else got discussed. And now you say whether or not they had this guidelines is not relevant. If you had said "You know, I think they have this guideline, but it's not really relevant, what is relevant is X" right when the topic of bash-completion guidelines popped up, this thread would have looked much different. In addition to that you are saying that I shouldn't have took all those mails as some kind of impediment from you, just feedback, even though you say: "you refuse to put two and two together", or "OK, you win", or "it isn't my responsibility to waste time arguing with you" because I counter-argue your feedback. I honestly don't know what to think. I guess I will think three times before replying to your feedback... hopefully you won't take offense in my silence as well =/ Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html