Re: Obscure error/warning/information message from git pull

[David Kastrup]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

> I wasn't asking about Windows.  It is clear to me by reading the
> script that using that on Windows is a bad idea, because symlinks are
> (a) only supported since Vista, and (b) require to run the script "As
> Administrator".  (And then there's a known caveat of removing the
> symlinked directory that actually removes the target, if you aren't
> careful to use rmdir.)

It's things like this that make me wonder whether the system programmers
at Microsoft are forbidden from using any other operating system.

How would anyone with modest exposure to decent operating systems stand
this kind of thing?

As programmer I somewhat regularly encounter the situation "this
behavior is far too inconsistent to make it worth documenting: let's
rather work on fixing it first".  It usually does not even need the
comparison to other systems to figure out the bad stuff from the good.

Now I can understand that at some times commercial development results
in decisions like "we won't invest work on implementing this".  But
"we'll invest into creating a quite crippled and mostly useless version
of the feature": where is the point in that?

How does this work?  Somebody knowing the feature from other system pins
down the salient points on a piece of scrap paper, someone else who
never saw it and speaks a different language then writes the spec sheet,
and somebody else who never saw the point in that feature implements
those parts of that spec sheet that are easiest to do?

Something must be going seriously wrong somewhere, and it's not the
first time that I cannot fathom just what.

-- 
David Kastrup