On Wed, 30 May 2007, Jim Meyering wrote: > > No. I'm glad to see that perhaps even you are surprised by your words. If you thought I was a polite person and am surpised by calling things crap after the fact, I'm afraid you have a few shocking moments coming to you. My reply was fairly polite by my standards. My tag-line is often "On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle". So let me rephrase my message to you: I think your INTERMEDIATE PATCH WAS TOTAL AND UTTER CRAP. EVERY SINGLE HUNK WAS SH*T. You expressly IGNORED my point that some errors aren't errors, and MADE GIT WORSE. Are we on the same page now? In contrast, your final patch was fine. The one where you finally fixed the issue that I complained about FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. Comprende? > The only editing was to capitalize WHOLE. Here's what you wrote: > > > I think this patch is fundamentally WRONG. This fragment is just a prime > > example of why the whole patch is crap. The old code was correct, and you > > broke it. > > Umm... are the above three lines the only part of my message you're > prepared to talk about? You haven't addressed any of the interesting > (technical) parts. Umm. Your final patch was a few trivial lines. I addressed all interesting technical parts IN MY ORIGINAL REPLY WHEN YOU FIRST POSTED IT. Which you ignored (or rather, explicitly chose to disagree with, and added MORE crap to the patch). Go away. I'm not interested in flaming you any more. The patch wasn't that interesting to begin with, and you have shown that you're more interested in being contrary than to actually fix the problems that were pointed out to you _immediately_ and without any flames. Linus - 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
