Re: [PATCH 2/2] Move sequencer to builtin
- From
Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
- Date
- Jun 9, 2013, 19:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALKQrgc5K0U2qCHjjzgxw1=70FbmHdokU3H0tfB_=+7gDVNzsA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAMP44s0ky7ad3cGBQs0DNht4Uo4MR08VrNx+PigcNraDP76CLA@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote: >> Go back to my 261 commits, show me one that is "unmindful of technical details". > > And you say this thread is an excellent example of your point that I'm > unmindful of technical details? > > It's not. There are no technical details I was unmindful of in this thread.
Ok, I'll bite (against my better judgment). From a related thread, a few minutes ago:
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch> wrote: >> So you would deliberately break a bisection on this test file? > No, this patch series won't be applied.
Thomas points out a technical detail with the patch series, and the answer given is 100% non-constructive.
FWIW, I'd like to express my support for the opinions expressed by Jonathan, Jeff and Thomas. They accurately describe my impression of these discussion threads.
...Johan
-- Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net> www.herland.net