Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] New remote-hg helper
- From
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 2, 2012, 19:20 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAMP44s0DyiH+ac-xnfmJ3+JSib+y8GYZZymM83HUjKi5CuqARg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAMP44s0N3k4b9SoKpkR=2-zSBb41tKW37tYhuxFfbooiLu59Kw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> As a rule, I don't see much value in writing a framework that works > only for one case, that smells more like over-engineering. If we had > two cases (hg and bzr), then we might be able to know with a modicum > of certainty what such a framework should have. So I would prefer to > have two standalone remote-helpers, and _then_ do a framework to > simplify both, but not before. But that's my personal opinion. > > Now that I have free time, I might be able to spend time writing such > a proof-of-concept remote-bzr, and a simple framework. But I would be > concentrated on remote-hg.
Actually, there's no point in that; there's already a git-remote-bzr:
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~bzr-git/bzr-git/trunk/view/head:/git-remote-bzr
So, what do we need a python framework for?
Cheers.
-- Felipe Contreras