On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 16:14 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 15:54 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 15:28 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <[email protected]> >> >> >> 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?
Due to tag system differences, hg-git won't convert tags in a way that they'll be properly transmitted to other hg users. That's fixable with bookmarks and pushkey, but pushkey is presently vaporware. > > Cheers, > > Jelmer > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dulwich-users Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dulwich-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
