[ciphershed] Re: TrueCrypt development history
- From: "Alain Forget" <aforget@xxxxxxx>
- To: <ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 07:06:41 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Niklas Lemcke - ???
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 05:11
> To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ciphershed] Re: TrueCrypt development history
>
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:29:31 +0200
> Rocki Hack <rocki.hack@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > >> On 6/18/14, 2:45, Alain Forget wrote:
> > >>> And here's an example difference between blame with TC history:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > https://github.com/discnl/truecrypt-source-archive/blame/master/Common/Crypto.c
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> and without:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://github.com/CipherShed/CipherShed/blame/master/Common/Crypto.c
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >> Hm, excellent example of how keeping in the history appears more
> > >> messy.
> >
> > > I'm not sure I follow. This is how blame output ends up eventually
> > > with enough different commits in a file (though I don't particularly
> > > like how github represents it, I even prefer git gui blame in this
> > > case with its colouring that groups the same commits).
> >
> > @Alain Forget:
> > Seems you don't have any clue how to use git...
> > And git / github are not the same!
> > Git (console) is much superior than github.
> >
> > Thanks Dimitri thats a good point.
> > You seem to be more experienced than most of the rest here...
> > It's not easy to argue with this kind, because they don't understand our
> > points in depth.
>
> I don't appreciate people who insult others and view themselves as
> superior. It is impossible to argue with that kind.
Thanks Niklas, I agree, of course.
Rocki, I did openly admit in a previous e-mail that I haven't used git, and
that I have not yet had the opportunity to get my hands dirty with the code. If
I may make a suggestion; rather than debase others (which will create a
negative atmosphere and quickly turn people away from the project), it might be
more constructive to more thoroughly describe/illustrate one's points so that
non-experts (in git or whatever technology or issue is being discussed) can
learn and understand. I realise this can be more difficult, but this has at
least two noteworthy benefits. First, this would foster an atmosphere where we
can all learn from each other and become stronger as a community. Second,
keeping discussions as open, accessible, and thus accountable is one of the key
goals our group is striving to achieve.
Alain
Other related posts:
