On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 16:14 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jel...@samba.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 15:54 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jel...@samba.org> wrote: > >> > On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 15:28 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jel...@samba.org> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 22:10 +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote: > >> >> >> I wonder why bitbucket Hg mirror of Dulwich was brought down from the > >> >> >> list or repositories on http://samba.org/~jelmer/dulwich/ ? > >> >> >> It would be convenient to submit patches there. I wonder if patches > >> >> >> applied to Bitbucket mirror could be brought back to Git? > >> >> > That repository was maintained by somebody else and it wasn't being > >> >> > kept > >> >> > up to date, so I removed it from the list in order to prevent > >> >> > confusion. > >> >> > > >> >> > Patches applied to the bitbucket mirror could certainly be brought > >> >> > back > >> >> > to Git, but I'd prefer it if somebody else would maintain that mirror > >> >> > and forward the patches upstream in a Git-compatible format (git > >> >> > repository that can be merged, git-am-style patches or just a set of > >> >> > unified diffs). > >> >> I'm perfectly willing to maintain a bitbucket mirror, > >> > Thanks :-) > >> > > >> >> <shameless plug> but why not just use hg-git? I do all my dulwich dev > >> >> work using hg-git and it's fantastic. > >> >> </shameless plug> > >> > Well, I already use bzr-git for my Dulwich work and am very happy with > >> > that. :-) I'd rather keep the amount of things that can go wrong when I > >> > publish Dulwich limited. > >> Right, I'm just questioning why we'd keep a mirror when there's a > >> perfectly good tool available that could pull right from the real > >> repo. > > Isn't that just one way of creating the mirror? There'd have to be a > > cronjob or something to do the pull though, and somebody needs to make > > sure the versions of dulwich/hg/hg-git in use there stay working. > hg convert would be better for creating a mirror. It just seems to me > that if you really want people to provide patches, they should be > working against the canonical central repo and not some mirror in > another VCS. I guess I'm not familiar enough with the differences between "hg convert", hg-git's pull and bzr-hg's pull. As far as the bzr and git branches of Dulwich are concerned they have the exact same contents, just a different representation on disk. Is this different for hg-git-created branches?
Cheers, Jelmer _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dulwich-users Post to : dulwich-users@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dulwich-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
