On Sunday 2007 April 15 21:51, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Now, I print out that diagram and pin it to my wall - sometimes copies > > of it are given to others. I do this on a regular basis. > > And is there *any* reason why you don't just do that as an "export" > option, when it's very clear that people won't send diffs that include it Of course there is a reason - the file I edit is the SVG itself, in inkscape while editing that file I press "print" to get a print out. Why on earth would I want to jump through hoops by closing the file I'm editing, running some export script to a temporary file that I don't want, then open up Inkscape again, check the export looks okay and then print - on what planet is /that/ simpler? Worse, there is more chance that I'll lose changes once there are two copies of the same file floating around. Which one am I editing and which one am I printing? Have I run the script yet? When I accidentally make changes to the wrong one, I've now got to merge those changes by hand back to the file they should have been in in the first place. > It's not a valid use because there are many SO MUCH BETTER WAYS to get the > same thing, that have none of the downsides of keyword expansion? I'm sorry, but we have different definitions of SO MUCH BETTER; it is _more_ trouble for me the user to have to run scripts just to print the file that is already on my screen, than not. > Your argument is akin to saying that "Why isn't it a valid use to replace > the steering wheel in my car with a mouth-operated joystick under the > passenger side seat?" I'd actually say that that is your argument - you want me to add steps to a process to get the same result. I just want the steering wheel, you want the steering wheel plus script that I run first to install the steering wheel and correctly adapt it for the current car. In my version the process is "I press print"; the fact that is hard for the version control system is irrelevant - the whole point of tools like git is to do work for me, not the other way around. > The fact that you *can* do something is not a valid argument for it being > a valid use. You *can* do stupid things, but if you can get to the same > end result by not doing stupid things, wouldn't you prefer that instead? It's not an accurate analogy at all. Your conclusion is your supposition - it's stupid because it's stupid. I don't understand what the huge problems are - all you've done is say again that it's a problem to have keyword expansion. Why? What problem does it actually cause? I'm not just being argumentative - I still have not understood what terrible evil it is that keyword expansion causes but crlf conversion does not. Andy -- Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET andyparkins@xxxxxxxxx - 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