On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:44:24AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And to solve that _single_ problem, I wanted parse_options() to be able
> to:
>
> - stop at unknown options (so that I could hand-parse them)
>
> - ignore unknown options (so that I could parse all the ones I knew
> about, and then either hand-parse the rest, or just pass them on to
> _another_ function that used some arbitrary model to parse the parts it
> knew about)
>
> See? Single issue.
OK, fair enough. You are working towards a single goal. But I think
there is a flaw with that one sub-part of your goal (specifically your
second bullet point). I don't care about the other parts, and in fact I
even said "this is a fine way of doing that".
> And I even sent out a single patch for it. That single patch, btw, was
> even rather small.
>
> Did you ever look at that patch? Did you ever look at the code I was
> trying to have use parse_options()? No.
How can you even say something so ridiculous? Were you sitting at my
computer all day yesterday, making sure I didn't read your patch? No?
Funnily enough, I was there. And guess what I saw? Yes, it was me
READING YOUR PATCH (in a mirror, of course).
But I don't expect you to have a camera installed over my shoulder. So I
guess you would have had to just content yourself with THE EMAILS WHERE I
MENTION YOUR PATCH AND ITS EFFECTS.
> You constantly try to change the discussion to be about SOMETHIGN ELSE.
>
> For example, you keep on bringing up this TOTAL RED HERRING:
>
> > - It is impossible for that mechanism to be correct in all cases, due
> > to the syntactic rules for command lines. IOW, you cannot parse an
> > element until you know the function of the element to the left.
>
> NOBODY F*CKIGN CARES!
I care. Apparently Junio cared in the thread that I pointed out earlier.
Other commands that parse the options will care, if we are to ever port
them to parse_options. I understand that you don't care about those
things, and you only want git-blame to work. I am merely trying to help
amortize work that goes into fixing git-blame into helping to fix other
commands. To do that, I pointed out a flaw that might prevent the same
solution being used again.
I understand that you are interested in incremental change, and that
doing something now in git-blame is better than doing nothing while we
wait for a longer, more complete solution to arrive. But did I say "No,
we shouldn't apply this patch from Linus because it's not the optimal
solution?" No. Instead, I said "In the meantime, your patch does not
make this particular problem any worse."
> Because what builtin-blame.c *already* does is exactly that.
I KNOW AND I EVEN SAID THAT. But here it is in case you are hard of
hearing:
From 20080623195314.GA29569@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
"In the meantime, I don't think your patch makes anything _worse_,
since we already have these sorts of bugs in the current parsing
code."
From 20080623183358.GA28941@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
"It's worse than that...Try (with current git-blame...
$ git blame -n 1 git.gc
fatal: bad revision '1'
> This is what I'm complaining about with your totally IDIOTIC mails. You're
> ignoring reality, and talking about how things "ought to work", and never
> ever apparently looked at how things *do* work.
Again, how in the world can you say that I didn't look at how things do
work WHEN I CUT AND PASTED A SAMPLE TRANSCRIPT SHOWING HOW THEY DO WORK?
BTW, this is the third time you have mentioned the phrase "ought to
work" in a way that is totally disingenuous about what I actually said.
I can understand that perhaps I was not clear in the initial statement.
But I would have thought the other two times I explained it further
would have made it clear. So did you truly not understand my point, or
are you just being intentionally rude?
> The fact is, the one program I wanted to convert already does exactly what
> you claim is "impossible to be correct in all cases".
And it's not correct as it is now. And we have lived with it. Which is
why I didn't say "your proposal makes things worse." In fact, I said the
opposite.
> So either shut up, or send a patch to fix what you consider a bug. I'm
> waiting.
I already volunteered to work on it. I'm sorry that the patch didn't
materialize immediately, but I was working on other parts of git, just
as I mentioned when I said I would work on it.
In the meantime, I think Pierre has proposed an alternate approach that
also has promise, so I think it makes sense to see how he progresses
with that rather than potentially duplicate work.
And I will shut up now, because this is obviously getting nowhere. I
just find your responses so rude and misinformed not about technical
matters, but about my statements and my intent that I feel the need to
publicly defend myself.
-Peff
--
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
