That does sound like magic. If I made the following three commits in order, how would it figure out that the last commit depends on the first commit but not on the second one?
That's not the sense of "depends on" that applies here. It's a textual relationship- in this case, I believe the last commit would depend on the second, which would depend on the first.
If you're familiar with CRDTs, they're closely related. Patches store enough information to commute, so a given state (e.g. a branch) can be described purely by a set of patches.
Rust is new and seeing stuff implemented in it is value on its own. It also might be an indication of the maturity of the language and it might be an indication that the fact that the authors chose a niche language is because their goals with this project aligns with the programming language. I'd say that a VCS is a good fit for rust.
If this was written in javascript I wouldn't have been interested.
If I had the authority to change the title, I would have done it. As it is, I only claim the "authority" to point out that the submitted title should be changed in accordance with the guidelines; something that others often do as well.
> a bizarre and unconventional reading of the rules.
The rule as quoted is "[...] please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize". I read that as an actual rule ("use the original title") with a qualification (the clickbait part) and an additional statement about editorializing that only reinforces the rule. We can drop that last part if you like. In that case, the rule is (still) "use the original title". How am I reading this in a bizarre and unconventional way?
> Folks who can read Rust will have extra reason to check out a worthy project, and perhaps look at how it works.
Yes. And if OP had added the bit about category theory, then folks interested in category theory would have extra reason to check Pijul out. If OP had added that Pijul is on a Darcs-like concept of an algebra of patches, folks interested in Darcs would have extra reason to check it out, etc.
Picking and choosing what additional -- even factual -- info to add or not to add to the original title is edito^H^H^H^Hexactly what the guidelines say that a submitter should not do.
> The Pijul folks make no secret of their use of Rust, and they're happy to talk about why they chosen it and why they like it.
A page about that would make a great HN submission. The page submitted here is not that page; as I pointed out, it never mentions Rust anywhere.
> If I had the authority to change the title, I would have done it. As it is, I only claim the "authority" to point out that the submitted title should be changed in accordance with the guidelines; something that others often do as well.
Yes, it's clear you would.
> How am I reading this in a bizarre and unconventional way?
Because you're suggesting that mentioning the technology used for the project is "editorialization" or "clickbait."
Quite frankly, everything you've done here has been done not with the intent of actually fixing a problem, but rather of escalating the argument about how mentioning Rust is unfair (although unfair to what? It's unclear) or a rules violation (which if it is, it is at such a mild edge of that spectrum that it's an extremely common type of infraction). I cannot imagine what sort of outcome you were hoping for, but it appears you didn't get it.
The mods have been here. In this very thread. They have elected not to change the post.
We can only conclude that if this is an infraction of the rules, it's not sufficient to invoke moderator interaction. I hope that this point is clear to you.
What's more, this happens dozens of times a day here on Hacker News, yet I cannot find even a single other instance of you leveling this complaint even as you comment in threads that commit this infraction.
So clearly, even you don't believe it should be universally enforced. You only perked up to this rule when Rust got mentioned.
12 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 51.4 ms ] thread+ import foo
+ import bar
+ foo.hello()
If you're familiar with CRDTs, they're closely related. Patches store enough information to commute, so a given state (e.g. a branch) can be described purely by a set of patches.
https://nest.pijul.com/pijul_org/nest
If this was written in javascript I wouldn't have been interested.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If I had the authority to change the title, I would have done it. As it is, I only claim the "authority" to point out that the submitted title should be changed in accordance with the guidelines; something that others often do as well.
> a bizarre and unconventional reading of the rules.
The rule as quoted is "[...] please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize". I read that as an actual rule ("use the original title") with a qualification (the clickbait part) and an additional statement about editorializing that only reinforces the rule. We can drop that last part if you like. In that case, the rule is (still) "use the original title". How am I reading this in a bizarre and unconventional way?
> Folks who can read Rust will have extra reason to check out a worthy project, and perhaps look at how it works.
Yes. And if OP had added the bit about category theory, then folks interested in category theory would have extra reason to check Pijul out. If OP had added that Pijul is on a Darcs-like concept of an algebra of patches, folks interested in Darcs would have extra reason to check it out, etc.
Picking and choosing what additional -- even factual -- info to add or not to add to the original title is edito^H^H^H^Hexactly what the guidelines say that a submitter should not do.
> The Pijul folks make no secret of their use of Rust, and they're happy to talk about why they chosen it and why they like it.
A page about that would make a great HN submission. The page submitted here is not that page; as I pointed out, it never mentions Rust anywhere.
Yes, it's clear you would.
> How am I reading this in a bizarre and unconventional way?
Because you're suggesting that mentioning the technology used for the project is "editorialization" or "clickbait."
Quite frankly, everything you've done here has been done not with the intent of actually fixing a problem, but rather of escalating the argument about how mentioning Rust is unfair (although unfair to what? It's unclear) or a rules violation (which if it is, it is at such a mild edge of that spectrum that it's an extremely common type of infraction). I cannot imagine what sort of outcome you were hoping for, but it appears you didn't get it.
I suggested that we drop this part if it makes you uncomfortable and focus on the core of the rule: "use the original title".
> "clickbait."
Something that appeared in text that I quoted, but which I did not suggest applied here.
> unfair
I did not use this word. You are arguing in extremely bad faith.
> a rules violation
Yep. The rule, again, being "use the original title".
> I cannot imagine what sort of outcome you were hoping for
In a thread that literally starts with the statement of the outcome I was hoping for? Here it is again: 'The title needs to be fixed to just "Pijul".'
I hope you have a wonderful day.
We can only conclude that if this is an infraction of the rules, it's not sufficient to invoke moderator interaction. I hope that this point is clear to you.
What's more, this happens dozens of times a day here on Hacker News, yet I cannot find even a single other instance of you leveling this complaint even as you comment in threads that commit this infraction.
So clearly, even you don't believe it should be universally enforced. You only perked up to this rule when Rust got mentioned.