Hi, In a recent e-mail it was suggested that gitifyhg and git-remote-hg had many differences, and that some users might be best served by using gitifyhg. While that e-mail was answered properly, I would like to point out what are the actual differences that affect users, not the ones that are particular to the state of the code this week, but rather the ones that are inherent due to the design and/or development process.
First of all, it's worth mentioning that much of the code of gitifyhg was simply copied from git-remote-hg. One example is the get_filechanges() function which was introduced in v6 of the initial patch series, after extensive profiling. The gitifyhg developers simply copied the function without mentioning where it came from. And like this one, there are numerous examples. == Code changes == In terms of design, they are vastly similar (not surprising since gitifyhg is based on remote-hg), however remote-hg tries to have a minimal code-base, avoid hacks, and tries to minimize and isolate changes to avoid regressions -- as is typical for git.git code --, whereas gitifyhg tries to introduce features as soon as possible, and fix the possible issues later on. A succint example is the introduction of a custom function to write tags: https://github.com/buchuki/gitifyhg/commit/9a89296 Then the inevitable fixes come (some after a major version was released): https://github.com/buchuki/gitifyhg/commit/8cd638b https://github.com/buchuki/gitifyhg/commit/1ce980a https://github.com/buchuki/gitifyhg/commit/885dd84 Contrast with the single commit in remote-hg, which is simpler, cleaner, passes the same tests, and still, it's not merged, nor on the queue (it's on the 'next' branch): https://github.com/felipec/git/commit/b565809 == Development practices == Each patch of remote-hg is reviewed in the git.git mailing list before being merged to the mainline, the stages are: fc/remote/hg-next -> fc/master (patch review) -> pu -> next -> master. On the other hand, gitifyhg doesn't have patch review through a mailing list, nor different development branches; everything is committed to 'master'. Features are important for users, but more important than features is that what used to work continues to work, and in the same way, and remote-hg's practices help to achieve that. == Testing == It's impossible to test all Mercurial repositories, or even a significant chunk of them, which is why it's a good idea to rely on the testing and gathered tricks of other conversion projects. By far the most widely used tool is hg-git, which already has a decent test cases, it makes sense then to use these tests cases and make sure that the output of a conversion tool matches the one of hg-git, and that's exactly what remote-hg does. gitifyhg has continuous testing, but it's more important to have the right tests. == Features == All the features of gitifyhg have been implemented in remote-hg, with the exception of push rollback. However, this feature is not needed if only certain commits are pushed; this way there's no need to rollback the previous commits that failed; they would be simply ignored for the next push. Here are the commits that implement them: Notes: https://github.com/felipec/git/commit/e7234dc Noteids (SHA-1): https://github.com/felipec/git/commit/663704d Changing alias: https://github.com/felipec/git/commit/316c330 The first two will be merged, but the last one won't; we can choose either the alias or the URL as a unique identifier, and choosing the alias makes more sense. This means as a user, there's no reason to use gitifyhg, since the same features are available in remote-hg. And as a developer, one can simply pick these missing patches (one?) and maintain a friendly fork. To make sure that remote-hg can indeed act like gitifyhg for all intents and purposes I created a branch to do so: https://github.com/felipec/git/tree/fc/remote/hg-gitifyhg-compat The changes are minimal: contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-hg | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) After these patches, gitifyhg's test suite passes **all** the tests (except a trivial one). == Minor differences == What follows are some tedious comparisons between both test suites, and an explanation about the difference. = remote-hg = == cloning with branches == -next -refs/heads/next +zero +refs/heads/master remote-hg closes the current branch (next), gitifyhg doesn't. == cloning with bookmarks == -feature-a -refs/heads/feature-a +zero +refs/heads/master remote-hg closes the current bookmark (feature-a), gitifyhg doesn't. == authors == H G Wells <we...@example.com> -test <unknown> -test <t...@example.com> +test <> +test <t...@example.com (comment)> Unknown <t...@example.com> name <t...@example.com> name <t...@example.com> -test <unknown> +test <> test <t...@example.com> test <t...@example.com> -test <unknown> +test <test at example dot com> Unknown <t...@example.com> remote-hg uses <unknown> when there's no e-mail, gitifyhg <>. Also, remote-hg removes garbage after the email, gitifyhg doesn't <t...@example.com (comment)>. == strip == Cloning into 'gitrepo'... 1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved saved backup bundle to /home/felipec/dev/git/t/trash directory.test-hg/tmp/hgrepo/.hg/strip-backup/06c5e5718f17-backup.hg WARNING: "Branch 'default' has more than one head, consider merging" WARNING: "Branch 'default' has more than one head, consider merging" warning: Not updating refs/hg/origin/bookmarks/master (new tip 7a424409fcae0c8855f3d887bf1c2c376c00f09c does not contain 796e103bcc0968ae99db18e7e612a7fb1fbb81cf) fatal: Error while running fast-import Funny how the gitifyhg people claimed SHA-1 ids were necessary, yet when the revision ids of Mercurial change, gitifyhg fails. = remote-hg bidi = == git tags == -@ changeset: 3:4c73577597f09b1bbd90399e85ac81bd0658e9f2 +@ changeset: 3:5a84c01d4d40e697a879c54f6b12e516d24bbfc7 | tag: tip | parent: 2:9f22c99d619819e20669949f318491eb47741d5f | parent: -1:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 | manifest: 3:56f3afad7f2dafcb324b2b3a2741e5750d3c9820 -| user: felipec@nysa +| user: Unknown <felipec@nysa> | date: Thu Apr 11 00:57:42 2013 +0000 | files: .hgtags | extra: branch=default gitifyhg doesn't restore the original author properly. == hg branch == alpha: No such file or directory abort: no files to copy Probably some issues checking out and restoring the original branch/bookmark. == hg tags == abort: not at a branch head (use -f to force) Ditto. = remote-hg hg-git = All these tests fail, so it's impossible to compare to the well known hg-git. = gitifyhg = == test_author_no_email == no email supplied <> no email supplied <unknown> Trivial e-mail difference (silenced with ). == test_author_abuse_quotes == totally <bad quote can be used in hg> totally <unknown> Irrelevant e-mail difference. == test_clone_relative == IOError: [Errno 21] Is a directory: path(u'XXX/git_dir/hg_base/.') remote-hg doesn't create a local clone when it's not needed (silenced with ). == test_clone_linear_branch == == test_clone_branch_with_spaces == == test_clone_bookmark == == test_clone_bookmark_with_spaces == == test_clone_divergent_bookmarks == == test_clone_bookmark_not_at_tip == All these fail because gitifyhg always checks out the 'default' branch, and ignores the 'master' ref (silenced with ). == test_clone_close_branch == Ditto. Plus gitifyhg shows closed branches (silenced with ). == test_pull_rename_remote == remote-hg allows changing the URL without recloning, gitifyhg allows changing the alias (silenced with ). == test_simple_push_updates_notes_after_contentful_pull == == test_simple_push_updates_remote == gitifyhg always checks out 'master' (silenced by ). == test_push_conflict_default == == test_push_conflict_default_double == == test_push_conflict_default_double_non_english == == test_push_conflict_named_branch == gitifyhg barfs when pushing a new head to a branch (the fix  might be merged to remote-hg). Also, these tests need a proxy clone (silenced with ). == test_push_to_bookmark == == test_push_to_bookmark_with_spaces == == test_push_up_to_date == gitifyhg always checks out 'master' (silenced with ). == test_push_tag_with_previous_commits == == test_push_only_new_tag == gitifyhg doesn't allow repeated tags (Mercurial does)(silenced with ).  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/219893  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/208990  https://github.com/buchuki/gitifyhg/commit/a46d518e2b8df5e8339c8caa9fa113642bc7ac3a  https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!forum/gitifyhg  https://github.com/felipec/git/commit/77d12ea  https://github.com/felipec/git/commit/415da9e  https://github.com/felipec/git/commit/4c0f7e2  https://github.com/felipec/git/commit/2fdca59  https://github.com/felipec/git/commit/8dfcee1  https://github.com/felipec/git/commit/4d023e5  https://github.com/felipec/git/commit/006b090  https://github.com/felipec/git/commit/316c330  https://github.com/felipec/git/commit/9545d66 -- 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