Thanks Gilles!

I'll have to review the patch again no matter what, but I think this
may be a problem with the hgsubversion integration since the core hg
commands are working as expected (shelling out to hg, that is.)
If this is the case -- that hgsubversion is to blame -- should I just
target the earliest version of Mercurial supported by hgsubversion?

-- 
~Dan

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:46:42PM +0200, Gilles Moris wrote:
> On Friday 14 May 2010 03:15:35 pm Dan Buch wrote:
> > Howdy all,
> >
> > I'm working on this patch:
> >
> >     http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/1464/
> >
> >
> > chipx86 recommended I post to the group about which version of Mercurial
> > I should target.  Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> 
> If you use only the Command Line Interface, the Mercurial team ensures the 
> backward compatibility, so that any version at least from 0.9 to 1.5 should 
> be OK. Note that this is essentially for core Mercurial commands, but not 
> assured for extensions.
> If you want some support, you can ask on IRC #mercurial.
> 
> Regards.
> Gilles.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to