On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Jeff King wrote: > > You seem to have a bunch of _other_ problems with parse_options. And > that is fine, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with anything I've > said. So don't "sky wizard" _me_ about those problems. ;P I have a _single_ problem I have with parse_options(), namely that it was painful to convert in pieces. It may well be that builtin-blame.c was one of the more painful cases, but it really was a _single_ issue. I also had a _single_ fix for it. I never had "other" problems. What happened was that you and Dscho and others then tried to pick that _single_ issue apart, because the solutions _you_ wanted (tying all the parsing together in one place) couldn't handle it as one issue and one problem. Your solutions always looked at just some small part of it. So no, I never introduced any other problems in the discussion at all. I had a single issue, and a single solution. You were the one who then argued against it and had *another* solution that fractured the problem up, and didn't actually solve _any_ of my original issues. Do you see now? So yes, we're arguing at cross purposes, but that's because you're constantly taking up a totally different and totally uninteresting position that has nothing what-so-ever to do with the original problem. And then you talk about how things "ought to be" in your world, to make your solution relevant at all. And I'm trying to tell you that "ought to be" has no relevance, because you're not even looking at the problem! 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
