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 14:10:02 -0400 Message-ID: <20130609181002.GC810@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20130608164902.GA3109@elie.Belkin> <20130608173447.GA4381@elie.Belkin> <20130609014049.GA10375@google.com> <20130609052624.GB561@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130609174049.GA1039@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 20:10:16 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 1Ulk4D-0008Co-MI for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Jun 2013 20:10:14 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752010Ab3FISKG (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:10:06 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:37230 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751692Ab3FISKG (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:10:06 -0400 Received: (qmail 18575 invoked by uid 102); 9 Jun 2013 18:10:55 -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 13:10:55 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 09 Jun 2013 14:10:02 -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 01:01:30PM -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. > > Good, so we agree that a project doesn't need a collegial work > environment to be extremely and amazingly successful. No, I said that point 1 was the point I was not agreeing with. I do not have an opinion on 2, as I do not interact with the kernel community enough to know. > In fact, any rational person would keep an open mind to the fact that > perhaps it actually _helps_ to not have such environment, based on the > evidence. In my experience, dealing with you has been a giant time sink. For example, this thread. Without needing to get into the exact definition of "such an environment", the above statement is certainly my backed by empirical experience. > > I do not have an interest in cataloguing past conflicts I and others > > have had with you; the list archive has done so. > > No. There is no such catalog. You made a claim, it's not backed by > evidence, merely by your subjective experience. And memory is a pretty > bad indicator of reality. I think this thread is an excellent example all by itself. -Peff