Re: [Emacs-diffs] master 4e23cd0 4/5: * mail/rmail.el (rmail-show-message-1): When displaying a mime message,

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>]

Eli Zaretskii writes:

 > [Even without Lisp applications, Emacs] is still a useful text
 > editor.  With Git, unless you know how to resolve pull/push
 > conflicts, you cannot do the simplest thing.  And that's the
 > difference; I don't understand how you can deny it.

The only way I can make sense of that comment is that your definition
of "simple" is the activity of highest complexity known to man:
working in large distributed teams, which is the situation that
induces pull/push conflicts.  Emacs provides zero[1] functionality
for handling that that doesn't involve a full "commit" (ie, file
save), and Emacs knows nothing about history *outside* of buffers (the
equivalent of a Git workspace).  Git does almost nothing that isn't
tuned to that level of *external* complexity.

The simplest thing is to use Git like RCS: git commit, git diff,
lather, rinse, repeat.  Even Richard and Alan do that without getting
their shorts in a knot.  But their workflows are very workspace-and-
mainline-centric; they don't see a need for dealing with branches, let
alone the DAG.  They don't want to go beyond the RCS workflow.  DVCS
fans do; branches and DAG manipulations are useful tools for many
development activities and workflows, which Richard and Alan evidently
perform rarely if ever.  Unfortunately for them most of the developing
world has decided that DVCS and DAGs are good things, and they're
finding themselves more and more isolated, even within the Emacs
community.

Granted, Git has a lot of spurious complication (the Git analogs of
`cl-caadar'! this happens when a tool is work-in-progess, as all
useful free software tools are in practice), but the problems Richard
and Alan are encountering are soon solved by those who study a little
bit, and establish some discipline in performing what they've learned.
Richard and Alan, too, could very easily develop and make habitual a
DVCS routine that allows them to continue the same programming
workflow with a little extra typing that happens to differ from
CVS.[2]  Instead they started a flamewar, and Richard has made
explicit that he expects somebody else to do most of the work of
adapting git to his specification.

There's nothing wrong with wanting your tools to be adapted to you, of
course, but if you want to cooperate with others, sometimes you need
to compromise with the shared tools.  Hundreds, maybe thousands, of
developers have been compromising with Richard's fiats about tools
(diff -c, ChangeLogs, Bazaar to name three) for decades.  Of course
such conventions are useful, but which is optimal is a matter of
personal preference and habit, which (shockingly enough) differ from
developer to developer.  Not everybody can have what they want.

Footnotes: 
[1]  I've heard of collaborative editing tools built on Emacs, but
AFAIK it's not a common activity or supported in Emacs itself.  And
AFAIK "agile" has moved away from that, favoring techniques like pair
programming instead.

[2]  Yes, I know that Richard at least finds typing painful.  Of all
people on God's green Earth, Richard should be able to find ways of
abbreviating ritualized typing.