| 1 |
hasufell posted on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 01:18:49 +0000 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I am tired of talking to people who are unobjective. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> But to make it more clear to you: I don't think that removing shallow |
| 6 |
> clone support is an improvement, so I vote against removing it. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
FWIW, I didn't get that from reading the thread, either. Not against |
| 9 |
something (your claim) isn't the same as being for it (what we find out |
| 10 |
here). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
People say my verbosity level needs turned down. Perhaps yours needs |
| 13 |
turned up. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
That said, while I didn't see any objections, what surprised me was the |
| 16 |
speed at which it happened. The RFC was posted early afternoon (my time) |
| 17 |
on a Friday. The commit was early evening on a Sunday. Not even an |
| 18 |
entire weekend. It seems to me that in the context of gentoo-dev, if one |
| 19 |
is really interested in the comments he has supposedly requested, giving |
| 20 |
a full week for comments is more traditional. There was no emergency |
| 21 |
here, and honestly, given the speed, the /appearance/ is that it was an |
| 22 |
effort to railroad it thru. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That's said even tho I agree that full-clone should be the default and am |
| 25 |
neutral on shallow-clone functionality (as long as it doesn't interfere |
| 26 |
with my ability to set full-clone locally), so the changes themselves are |
| 27 |
good by me. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 31 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 32 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives