Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes:
> > The tools are now maintained out-of-tree, and they have a regression in
> > v2.0.
> You seem not to understand at all what a regression is.
> My understanding is that versions of remote-hg shipped with all
> versions of Git did not work with Hg 3.0, so not working with Hg 3.0
> is a regression in v2.0 at all.
I explained to you multiple times already that is a different issue, but
it somehow doesn't get through your skull.
Let me try a different approach.
git-remote-bzr has a regression in Git v2.0.
Did you get the BAZAAR part? That's right, this is unrelated to
Mercurial v3.0 because it doesn't have anything to do with Mercurial.
*BOTH* git-remote-hg and git-remote-bzr have a regression in Git v2.0.
> A recent report was about Hg 3.0 not working with 1.9.3, but I think
> you earlier said all versions of Git does not work with Hg 3.0, and I
> can believe it. That is hardly a regression.
> You could argue that Hg has a new regression to its external users
> of its API when it went to 3.0. We actually had a similar breakage
> in 1.5.4, where it was reported late in the cycle after -rc0 [*1*]
> that cgit that linked with our internal API libgit.a was broken by a
> change on our side, which resulted in us fixing the breakage (even
> though technically you may be able to say that it was cgit's fault
> to link with libgit.a in the first place) with 18125644 (Move
> sha1_file_to_archive into libgit, 2008-01-14) very late in the
> cycle. Calling that a regression in cgit would have been insane,
> even if we did not patch our side up to accomodate it.
> Stop this idiocy.
Sigh, you just don't seem to understand that you are thinking about a
different issue. I don't think there's any other way I can explain it to
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