From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Move sequencer to builtin Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 13:40:49 -0400 Message-ID: <20130609174049.GA1039@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20130608164902.GA3109@elie.Belkin> <20130608173447.GA4381@elie.Belkin> <20130609014049.GA10375@google.com> <20130609052624.GB561@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Duy Nguyen , Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano , Brandon Casey , Ramkumar Ramachandra To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jun 09 19:41:07 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Uljbt-0003ml-Rg for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:40:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751635Ab3FIRky (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jun 2013 13:40:54 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:36985 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751493Ab3FIRkx (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jun 2013 13:40:53 -0400 Received: (qmail 16713 invoked by uid 102); 9 Jun 2013 17:41:42 -0000 Received: from c-71-62-74-146.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.62.74.146) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Sun, 09 Jun 2013 12:41:42 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:40:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 07:15:45AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Sorry, but I don't agree, and I want to publicly state my opinion so > > that Jonathan (and other bystanders on the list) knows that he is not > > alone in his opinions. > > You don't agree that 1) a collegial work environment is overrated, 2) > that the Linux kernel doesn't put an emphasis on being collegial, or > 3) that it's the most successful software project in history? Point 1. > Go back to my 261 commits, show me one that is "unmindful of technical details". I do not have an interest in cataloguing past conflicts I and others have had with you; the list archive has done so. I have already made my comments there, and I see no point in starting a new argument. > Exactly. Nobody is forcing you to read my emails. But somehow you > already know that ignoring them is not in the best interest of the > project. And by that I mean it's in the best interest of our users, > without which our project is nothing. I never claimed that you contribute nothing. But every minute spent arguing with you is a minute that could be spent on something more productive. It is certainly possible that community members reading your emails could be a net negative for the users, if it leaves them no time for other code. -Peff