obliterate functionality?

Greg Lindahl lindahl at pbm.com
Wed Mar 19 21:25:45 CDT 2008


On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 08:00:41PM -0500, Mark A. Flacy wrote:

> > Do you really think statements like this advance a polite discussion?
> 
> Yes.  I think they do.
> 
> Suppose, for example, the original poster expressed a desire that  
> Mercurial should work *exactly* in the same way that CVS does.  What  
> possible reply is there to such a thing?

Abuse. In that case you would intend abuse, and it would be appropriate.

It did not strike me that this OP was being that inappropriate.

> In this case, the original poster has expressed a desire for  
> functionality that the maintainers are rather patiently informing him  
> cannot be done in a DVCS.

It can't? Funny, several people (including some of the maintainers)
have pointed out how mercurial can, in some circumstances, provide
some of the functionality desired. That's a lot more polite and
constructive than the "NO NO NO", "love it or leave it", and "most
people asking for this functionality are confused" answers.

I'm totally happy with the final answer being, "obliterate is going to
be incredibly intrusive and change all your hashes" answer.  I'm not
very happy with some of the discussion along the way. And this isn't
the first time I've seen unconstructive answers aimed at newcomers to
the list.

-- greg




More information about the Mercurial mailing list