Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Really? Based on what reasoning? I have proven his reasoning to be
> > basically wrong.
> Perhaps s/proven/convinced myself only/; you didn't prove it to me
> and I doubt you proved it to John.

And you are still conveniently avoiding the question:

Based on what reasoning?

> > Of course it wasn't a mistake.
> I doubt about the "Of course" part.  The first reaction after seeing
> that the new "changegroup" is used only inside check_version(3,0)
> and nowhere else was to wonder if that import is necessary (or even
> safe) for the pre-v3.0 versions.

I don't care about your first reaction. If that was only present in
newer versions, how do you think it would pass the testing on older


Normally I would explain the details of why this is the case, and send
the crash regresion fix for v2.0 with a clear explanation, but since you
are adamant in threating git-remote-hg/bzr as just another crappy
contrib script that doesn't even have tests like diff-highlight or
hg-to-git. Why would I care?

The fact that I'm the maintainer and I say it'ss good should be good
enough, and if the current version in "master" renders unusable the
existing Mercurial clones, hey, it's only in contrib, right?

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