Re: Slowness issue with git completion

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Nikolai Weibull <now@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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

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’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.

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’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.

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’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.

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’m not.

So why should I even try?

-- 
Felipe Contreras