Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > So you grant that there is no reason anybody can think of why we would ever > want a post-update-branch? No, it only shows that you (and I) are not imaginative enough (and/or we didn't bother spending enough brain cycles) to come up with an example. Your lack of imagination and foresight does not give you any right to close the door to those who come after you who have real needs, or make it awkward to add it later for them. > Let's make a bet, we go for 'pre-update-branch' and five years from now, if > there's no 'post-update-branch', you will publicly accept thta I was right. > > Deal? Let me get this straight. You spent a lot of effort to argue that naming it update-branch is the right thing, but now you want me to name it pre-update-branch, only so that you can prove you are right? Playing a silly bet among friends may be fun from time to time. But I do not like using Git as a plaything, I am not your friend, and I never felt it fun having to interact with you. I am not interested in proving you right or wrong. You are not that interesting. What you said however shows clearly the reason why it is not fun to work with you, and I think that is a lot more important point. Your priorities are screwed up. For the rest of us, making Git better is the primary reason why we are here. You seem to be saying that it is more important to you, however, to "win" your little argument, and you are willing to even sacrifice a better Git (in your mind, with the hook named as update-branch) in order to "win". With a person with such screwed-up priorities, nobody whose first objective is to make Git better can have a sane conversation. Ask those who said they do not want to work with you. In the list archive, there are plenty of examples to choose from, and I think they will agree with me. It is a pity that in all of these long flamefest, you may have meant well to improve Git when you brought up something that needs to be solved in your first few messages. The rest of us may even have agreed that it is good to address that issue on many of them. But the time "something needs to be done" and "the way Felipe proposes to solve it is good" turns out to be different, i.e. when those who agree with the former do not agree with the latter, the discussions with you go downhill quick. Each and every time. See your "index is hard to learn for people---can we do something?" topic, if you want another example, where you try to twist words by Peff and others and caught in doing so. Now, I know you are going to say "that is what *you* think, and even if they agree, that is only what *they* think. it is not true! my priorities are right and they are wrong!". I'd freely give you that they are only *impressions* we have on you, that we were forced to form by observing your past and present behaviours. It may not be "true you". You may be a loving an wonderful person in reality, and you are not showing your true self when you are on this list. But you know something? The project advances by humans working together, and without telepathy, these impression are the only thing we humans can go by. I also know that you are going to say "that is what *you* think". I have nothing more to say to you at that point. It could be that your "bet" is a way for you to finally admitting that naming the hook with "pre-" prefix will result in a better Git than without, without you having to say "Yes, you are right, let's change it" (which I rarely if ever saw you doing). But still that shows the same screwed-up priorities---winning your little argument (or not losing it) matters more to you than working well with others. I do not think I want to work with such a person. -- 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