| I didn't say it was amazing. Perhaps you are the one being reflexive. I wrote: "All the things you said could be true, yet their product [could be] amazing." Grammatically, it's called "elliptical." I then immediately say: "I haven't used it, but I like what I'm seeing"--so what I meant should be quite obvious. What value are you adding with your criticism of what--in my case--at least has a question: "What's actually wrong with the product? Why is it not 'well-engineered'?" My point was extremely clear--his post needed to have evidence of how their processes results in bad product. And I asked that as a question--perhaps you know? Something tells me you even do (perhaps you're a Gitlab user), yet you're choosing to take an unproductive meta route of criticizing my partial criticism with no actual goal. What do you expect to accomplish with that? I presume you got stuck on one word ("amazing"), made up your mind and didn't read the rest. My bad, i could have been more clear. However, the essence of what I was saying was straightforward, but you chose to see the forrest instead of the trees. A common reason people take that route is because there is something else you wished to express, but didn't--perhaps you have real experience with gitlab in one way or another that resonates more with the person's viewpoint I replied to. I'm not saying he's wrong--I just would like to hear the full reasoning behind that perspective. I'd love to hear what that actual perspective is. Gitlab is an interesting product I haven't spent much time reviewing until today. Maybe you can provide the evidence to back up the original poster's point?? |
I haven't used it, but I like what I'm seeing
If you're just talking about what you're seeing, you have the same vantage point as everyone else and the original poster made a number of obvious and valid criticisms - data loss is one, they are selling software and a service.
It probably is trolling on my part, but as harsh as the original poster's words were, he's got some points.