Re: [PATCH 00/13] remote-hg: general updates
- From
Jed Brown <jed@59a2.org>
- Date
- Apr 4, 2013, 19:01 UTC
- Message-ID
- <87vc82qfws.fsf@59A2.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAMP44s3zm+-220Xpqv_=JkJ=g2pS79hUNjacVZ=JejitcG=B8A@mail.gmail.com>
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> Where is the evidence? You say remote-hg doesn't work, I say it does, > the difference is that I have evidence to prove it.
There are many projects that don't do what they claim. I gave remote-hg a few minutes and moved on since (at the time) it didn't seem interesting enough to be worth the effort of making proper bug reports. There's a lot of low-quality code in the world and I'm willing to tolerate a certain false-positive rate. I apologize for misdiagnosing your project and I'm happy to believe that you have since fixed the bugs. I was merely answering you question of why some of us contributed to gitifyhg in preference to remote-hg.
I see no value in dwelling on the value judgement I made a few months ago. Additionally, I have almost no use for either project any more.
> remote-hg doesn't fail with the non-fast-forward error, in fact, it > doesn't fail at all, it pushes correctly, and that's reported as a > failure.
I don't agree that force-pushing by default is "correct" behavior.