From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 00:46:15 -0400 From: sl@9front.org To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <49961808-9D22-4E6F-8196-B29EF4FBD412@9srv.net> References: <20130602155946.GA76076@intma.in> <17f847d4bb447895848cd56daccb4d7b@proxima.alt.za> <20130602165344.GA92436@intma.in> <914e8aff703ae3592f13e3fa53a2c23f@kw.quanstro.net> <20130603114926.GA19716@intma.in> <49961808-9D22-4E6F-8196-B29EF4FBD412@9srv.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Fossil disk usage over 100%? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 63f7aaf0-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 >> Richard mentioned fixing the snapshots bug in fossil. This >> is about as close as we've come to examining the technical >> issues. > > No: this *is* examining the technical issues. Richard has done > actual engineering here; it's moderately depressing that many > members of this list, and particularly some of the more vocal, > don't seem able to recognize the difference. About as close as we've come to examining the technical issues in this thread. The context of my observation was the continuing cascade of vague recriminations. I don't think I was that unclear. I am however losing track of who is defending what. I'll stop attempting to moderate. -sl