71–80 of 179 posts
He claims he did not use Mercurial because (a) it stores the history in binary blobs, (b) it does not have sequential revision numbers, and (c) its CLI syntax is ugly, see [1]. Unfortunately he is wrong about (b) and (c). Mercurial assigns automatic sequential revision numbers (perfect for a single non-distributed repo) and its CLI syntax is so neat that this is the reason I do use it a lot to track changes to single…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sometimes use git this way on local files: git init # make a local repo git add foo.txt # add the file [edit] git add -u # add changes to commit git commit -m"made a change" # check in changes git log # see commits git status # what has changed That's really all you need to know.
What you need to know is that "git add" has little to do with "foo add" where "foo" is just about any other version control system. Look, you ran "git add" on files that were already added, what? There is this hidden thing called the index that confuses the heck out of everyone. Oh, but it's not always called the index, either: that would be unnecessarily easy. Sometimes it is called "the cache". How to show the diff…
http://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/book/01-introduction/images/ar...
So it is confusing, but I think it can be taught for very basic use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the link. He actually compares homosexual with pedophiles. I want to have absolutely nothing to do with such a degenerate.
For those of you brave souls who downvote me. I'm wondering which part of my statement you disagree with. - You think homosexual are pedophiles? - It's not important what he thinks about homosexuals. You're going to support him by using his software. If he had held the same hate speech about women in 2014, everyone would be here talking how imbecile this guy is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're kinda missing the point: this project is designed around a single user maintaining a linear history for a single file. Using it for a project would be a weird impedance mismatch. That's not to say I find SRC compelling... in the slightest. Just that you'd never use SRC to track a project.
You're right, I was mostly just being snarky - but, that said, the source of SRC (sigh - what a terrible name, as others have said) is, in fact, just one Python file, so I suppose you could arguably use SRC for it. I don't find it at all compelling either.
I think in a strange way, this tool is actually not a terrible idea. Git is not a configuration management tool, no matter how hard people try to shoe-horn it into that role. A simpler Git designed for configuration management is indeed a good idea. Unfortunately, I think the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. For one, not including the committer is an important flaw. If you're only managing your own system's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I dropped out of highschool and attended no postsecondary and I don't have any problems with Git. Git problems arise when people want to do moderately sophisticated things, beyond just committing changes and viewing logs and diffs. > If git commit and git checkout are too complicated, If "If git commit and git checkout are too complicated" is your argument, then you aren't doing anything more sophisticated with git…
I think you may have misunderstood my comment, of course there is more to it then checkout and commit. Those are the basics, that's where you start. Then you get stuck somehow, and you read more . That's what I did at least. IMO It's about not giving yourself the impression that the learning curve is insurmountable, you can do it. Starting with the basics and growing up is, I thought, common knowledge for acquiring a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow.. classy guy. That said, people can change. 12 years is a long time.. does he still think that way?
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1063
After reading, I'm not sure what to think. I do not have the subject matter familiarity necessary to take a position on his claims, nor does he cite anything other than personal experience and his own research.
If his historical claims with regard to homosexuality are correct, then I can say with great certainty that his other claim as to how these facts will be interpreted in the modern climate is distressingly right.
Worth noting that he takes no position on the rights of homosexual couples. The only value judgement made therein is that (assuming the information used to reach this conclusion is correct) that historically, homosexuality been associated with some pretty ugly and downright evil things.
If they're not correct, then this amounts to a very, very disgusting and ugly smear piece worthy of groups like the infamous Westboro church.
So now I wonder.. which is it?
If it weren't for the Eich/Mozilla thing from a few months ago, I'd have looked at these claims a lot less skeptically coming from a technologist who's intimately familiar with logic, and who would necessarily place facts above all else when it comes to arguing a point. That's not a thing I can do anymore, especially considering the tendency of actual bigots to couch their own personal prejudices in superficially-correct-sounding scientific language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the link. He actually compares homosexual with pedophiles. I want to have absolutely nothing to do with such a degenerate.
For those of you brave souls who downvote me. I'm wondering which part of my statement you disagree with. - You think homosexual are pedophiles? - It's not important what he thinks about homosexuals. You're going to support him by using his software. If he had held the same hate speech about women in 2014, everyone would be here talking how imbecile this guy is.
This part:
> I want to have absolutely nothing to do with such a degenerate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1063
Thank you for locating this. After reading, I'm not sure what to think. I do not have the subject matter familiarity necessary to take a position on his claims, nor does he cite anything other than personal experience and his own research. If his historical claims with regard to homosexuality are correct, then I can say with great certainty that his other claim as to how these facts will be interpreted in the modern…
Here's a more recent example:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5651
The only analysis I'll give for it is that I was also disturbed by the idea of Eich being forced out, but would never donate a penny to organizations fighting marriage equality; two wrongs can't make a right.
OK I give up.
I find his thoughts on race to be alarming, too.
It's hard for me to reconcile the idea that ESR's beliefs are germane and troubling with the principle of tolerance for other people's beliefs. But: I think there's something substantively and intrinsically disturbing about the specific things ESR says. I don't think I'd have trouble being friends with someone who opposed marriage equality. But I do have trouble with what ESR says about LGBT people. It might be the whole package of positions that ESR takes, not just about LGBT issues but about race, politics, &c.
I have friends with very conservative beliefs (though none, to my knowledge, have ever argued that homosexuality is inextricably bound with pederasty). But none of them have a cohesive worldview in which their own attributes just happen to define the ideal human, compared against which all nonconformant humans are inferior. ESR, on the other hand...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing un-nice about that article. It's a reasoned argument. You may disagree with its conclusion, and you can write your own refutation of it. But it has nothing to do with ESR's niceness.
This is the Internet in 2014. We don't refute controversial arguments, we scream "wow, just wow, hate speech, what a bigot", publicly shame and defame their character and derail their careers. We're enlightened now.
