Re: Slowness issue with git completion

[Nikolai Weibull <now@xxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:30, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Nikolai Weibull <now@xxxxxxxx> 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’m 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.  You may not be aware of it, but your way of
expressing yourself is rather inflammatory.

There’s a big difference between writing

  Would you consider rewriting the code so that it would be a lot
faster, while still being mostly correct?

and what you wrote, which is a commandment hidden inside a question.

If we can find a solution that’s a lot quicker and still maintains
some of the nice features that we currently have, preferably correct
tags and descriptions, then I’m certainly interested.  There have,
however, not been any suggestions made in this area until Frank posted
his suggestion yesterday and perhaps Benjamin’s suggestion has some
merits to it as well (posted today).  Oliver also mentioned rewriting
it in the way that he did for the perforce completion (or was it
Subversion?).  I did, as I’ve already said, try rewriting it along
those lines, but it didn’t help.  I’m glad that we’re having this
discussion, because, believe it or not, I’m not happy with the delays
either.  I will, however, not be told what to do.

> Even if I provide a fix that make things slightly less
> correct but usable, you wouldn't take the patch?

You haven’t offered to do so until now, so how could we take a stance
on it?  What you’ve been saying so far is that /we/ should rewrite it
in a way that /you/ want it to work.