Re: [PATCH 0/4] remote-hg: more improvements

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: May 7, 2014, 20:37 UTC
Message-ID: <536a999e2c0c_76ff7a52ec1e@nysa.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqvbth8ha9.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> > Really? Based on what reasoning? I have proven his reasoning to be
> > basically wrong.
> 
> Perhaps s/proven/convinced myself only/; you didn't prove it to me
> and I doubt you proved it to John.

And you are still conveniently avoiding the question:

Based on what reasoning?

Show 6 quoted lines

> > Of course it wasn't a mistake.
> 
> I doubt about the "Of course" part.  The first reaction after seeing
> that the new "changegroup" is used only inside check_version(3,0)
> and nowhere else was to wonder if that import is necessary (or even
> safe) for the pre-v3.0 versions.

I don't care about your first reaction. If that was only present in newer versions, how do you think it would pass the testing on older versions?

https://travis-ci.org/felipec/git

Normally I would explain the details of why this is the case, and send the crash regresion fix for v2.0 with a clear explanation, but since you are adamant in threating git-remote-hg/bzr as just another crappy contrib script that doesn't even have tests like diff-highlight or hg-to-git. Why would I care?

The fact that I'm the maintainer and I say it'ss good should be good enough, and if the current version in "master" renders unusable the existing Mercurial clones, hey, it's only in contrib, right?

-- 
Felipe Contreras