From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 19:20:28 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] New remote-hg helper
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:

> 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