From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23510 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2011 10:43:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 29089 Received: (qmail 16144 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2011 10:43:04 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _spf.google.com designates 209.85.161.43 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XR5fURnoRU0g/sL5F+a8AL4jpHv7yoGIpNTSmmweaIc=; b=hfQTAV4lMJwUcSb9uOWKZbTNI2EvqPEETx4LauUrCG2Bha1MlzcmVn/Rm6C141+IWa afKdaPLFM7TWy0P7QVEVDzLntCjsIGxKOjQtxPduaoYQUJSC+F+VV4Q313RNQwFaMvYC brxKMTMOHgPmoS75Y9ZRQ22OWLG4Rjeuvwhyg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=j8tab8HKTGKmNKXnVYtcizwJMRj9McBRS2lFncy8iDHAqC1CpgspYdpQcr9Ec1UEzV eme0de6T9lr+778POVYsuXOT5qbC+K6XEtoMkIAjEQQRlt96wST7/yXpzM0h5MgLLR96 l8j5B568hp+vrSxeTkigcB9N1xu1g9oUlilJc= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <87liyw7t0o.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:42:58 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Slowness issue with git completion From: Felipe Contreras To: Nikolai Weibull Cc: Mikael Magnusson , Frank Terbeck , zsh-workers@zsh.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Nikolai Weibull wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:30, Felipe Contreras > wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Nikolai Weibull wrote: >>> Felie Contreras wrote: >>>> Are you interested in fixing this use-case even if it means to make >>>> some compromises in correctness or not? >>> >>> No, I=E2=80=99m not. >> >> I am not used to zsh development, so is Nikolai's opinion shared by >> the rest? > > I am primarily not interested in fixing it when you pose it to me in > the manner that you do. =C2=A0You may not be aware of it, but your way of > expressing yourself is rather inflammatory. > > There=E2=80=99s a big difference between writing I do realize it, I don't care. I'm not here to make you feel good about yourself, I'm here to get something done. And I didn't command anything, I asked a question. You are prejudging. > If we can find a solution that=E2=80=99s a lot quicker and still maintain= s > some of the nice features that we currently have, preferably correct > tags and descriptions, then I=E2=80=99m certainly interested. I don't think there's any right now, which why I am insisting on a compromise. Feel free to prove me wrong. > There have, > however, not been any suggestions made in this area until Frank posted > his suggestion yesterday and perhaps Benjamin=E2=80=99s suggestion has so= me > merits to it as well (posted today). =C2=A0Oliver also mentioned rewritin= g > it in the way that he did for the perforce completion (or was it > Subversion?). =C2=A0I did, as I=E2=80=99ve already said, try rewriting it= along > those lines, but it didn=E2=80=99t help. =C2=A0I=E2=80=99m glad that we= =E2=80=99re having this > discussion, because, believe it or not, I=E2=80=99m not happy with the de= lays > either. =C2=A0I will, however, not be told what to do. I am explaining what I think should be done. If you agree or not is a question, whether you want to do it or not is a different question. >> Even if I provide a fix that make things slightly less >> correct but usable, you wouldn't take the patch? > > You haven=E2=80=99t offered to do so until now, so how could we take a st= ance > on it? =C2=A0What you=E2=80=99ve been saying so far is that /we/ should r= ewrite it > in a way that /you/ want it to work. Again, you are imagining things. I always argued what I think should be done. Who ends up doing it is irrelevant; or does my proposal suddenly becomes good if I do it, but bad if you do it? But you said: > > Are you interested in fixing this use-case even if it means to make > > some compromises in correctness or not? > > No, I=E2=80=99m not. So why should I even try? --=20 Felipe Contreras