On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contre...@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

Turns out the quality of that tools is not that great, so I decided to
write a simple one using bzr-fastimport. It works nicely, although I
wouldn't trust the quality of bzr-fastimport too much.

It's so simple I don't see the need of a framework, but if needed, one
could be done taking these git-remote-{hg,bzr} as a basis.


Felipe Contreras
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to