5 ms·
You are now ignoring the fact that in the initial quote you objected to was the intentionally tongue-in-cheek: > 'For a Git user interface this is relatively s
by allover 7y ago
You are now ignoring the fact that in the initial quote you objected to was the intentionally tongue-in-cheek:
> 'For a Git user interface this is relatively straightforward and concise'.
It kinda looks like you missed the joke and are now doubling-down on your disagreement.
The author does not think the proposed example is reasonable. You're in agreement.
- kazinator 7y agoSince git is something that I rely on for everyday use, and long-term data stroage, and its development is being threatened by the inclusion of moronic changes I completely disagree with, I'm completely unreceptive to jokes. This is no laughing matter.
- allover 7y agoI agree, things shouldn't be this bad. But unless you're going to take this up with Linus, you're just yelling at your fellow disappointed spectators.
- hinkley 7y agoAnd the responder makes a pretty unsubtle allusion to Lovecraft. Anyone who compares the git CLI to being driven insane by Elder Gods is not defending the git CLI.
- allover 7y agoNot sure if the HN thread or my comment has thrown you, but I'm replying to 'kazinator'. I know he's not defending it. What I said is that he (kazinator) is inadvertently attacking somebody that's also not defending it (the author).