[colbyrussell]

Please explain how you got there, because I'm at a loss. Both examples involve using the CLI. The GitHub version I ran through actually includes more CLI steps. How could that possibly have been my intention?

[diminoten]

Your references to clicking repeatedly, and the general fact that github.com's innovation is the GUI it puts on top of a git workflow.

[colbyrussell]

I'm mystified about what's going on right now.

Both versions involve clicking.

Both versions involve command-line steps.

The difference is that the GitHub version requires more of both, needlessly. That's the point of what I wrote. That's the only point.

I don't understand this context where I'm being forced to defend an argument that's been foisted upon me and that I never made and never even thought of trying to make.

[diminoten]

I'm sorry you don't understand it, but you don't get to ignore the implications that spawn off of your argument just because they're inconvenient.

[colbyrussell]

What? You get to imagine some bad argument that would make it most convenient for you, and then demand that I defend that argument, as if it were one that I wanted to make? This is what I'm responsible for? Dealing with someone who resorts to strawmanning the person/idea at the other end when challenged?

[diminoten]

I'm not imagining it, and that's the problem you're running into. It's a consequence of what you said.

[dllthomas]

It's not a direct consequence of anything that was said. It's a possible implication - in the conversational sense of implication, not the logical sense - but those get to be disclaimed.

[dllthomas]

The patch version only involves clicking when sending an email with an attachment involves clicking, right?