Re: [PATCH] contrib: remote-helpers: add move warnings (v2.0)
- From
Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
- Date
- May 13, 2014, 23:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAL=YDW=jCEtfEmvO-173jpJB0f3mJ2+efihprVw+MpVjxyyExQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <53729b2150a84_34aa9e5304e0@nysa.notmuch>
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > The tools are now maintained out-of-tree, and they have a regression in >> > v2.0. >> >> You seem not to understand at all what a regression is. >> >> My understanding is that versions of remote-hg shipped with all >> versions of Git did not work with Hg 3.0, so not working with Hg 3.0 >> is a regression in v2.0 at all. > > I explained to you multiple times already that is a different issue, but > it somehow doesn't get through your skull.
Could you please calm down and adjust your behavior. This constant hostility and rudeness makes the mailing list very unpleasant.
Show 37 quoted lines
> > Let me try a different approach. > > git-remote-bzr has a regression in Git v2.0. > > Did you get the BAZAAR part? That's right, this is unrelated to > Mercurial v3.0 because it doesn't have anything to do with Mercurial. > > *BOTH* git-remote-hg and git-remote-bzr have a regression in Git v2.0. > >> A recent report was about Hg 3.0 not working with 1.9.3, but I think >> you earlier said all versions of Git does not work with Hg 3.0, and I >> can believe it. That is hardly a regression. >> >> You could argue that Hg has a new regression to its external users >> of its API when it went to 3.0. We actually had a similar breakage >> in 1.5.4, where it was reported late in the cycle after -rc0 [*1*] >> that cgit that linked with our internal API libgit.a was broken by a >> change on our side, which resulted in us fixing the breakage (even >> though technically you may be able to say that it was cgit's fault >> to link with libgit.a in the first place) with 18125644 (Move >> sha1_file_to_archive into libgit, 2008-01-14) very late in the >> cycle. Calling that a regression in cgit would have been insane, >> even if we did not patch our side up to accomodate it. >> >> Stop this idiocy. > > Sigh, you just don't seem to understand that you are thinking about a > different issue. I don't think there's any other way I can explain it to > you. > > -- > Felipe Contreras > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html