Re: [PATCH 0/4] remote-hg: more improvements
- From
- Philippe Vaucher <philippe.vaucher@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 11, 2014, 19:33 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAGK7Mr4DYuU34Zf_3fRQFkT+1TGOkpfLPUnQh=tYh6EMtBEt9A@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <536ad9601b73b_3caaa612ecdc@nysa.notmuch>
Show 10 quoted lines
> I addressed every issue reported constructively, every bug report was > fixed, every patch reviewed and usually improved by me. I made sure > users of older versions wouldn't be affected negatively when the marks > file was upgraded, and I even setup automatic tests for different > versions Bazaar and Mercurial that run every time I push to my > repository. > > It is *way* beyond the quality of any other tool in 'contrib/' and even > some tools in the core, like 'git-request-pull' (which has known bugs), > and probably even 'git-pt'.
Junio, can you comment on this? I understand this probably doesn't really affect the issue at hand, but it'd help clarify if it's ever possible to move out of contrib/ nowadays.
> If git-remote-hg belongs out-of-tree, so does git-svn and git-p4. If > git-remote-hg belongs in the contrib area, so does git-svn, and git-p4.
Here too, can you clarify a bit about what should be out of tree and what should be in contrib? I understand that not all rules are set in stone and that there is an historical baggage for which applying all rules is probably more trouble than it's worth, but again it's nice to clarify for future users. Also it'd probably be worth commenting on unwritten rules about human factors (easyness of communication, response to criticisim, ability to make concessions, etc).
Philippe