Felipe Contreras writes:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> A tool that is in contrib/ follows the contrib/README rule.
>>
>> I do not maintain it. Maintenance is up to the person who asked to
>> include it there. I do ask the people who propose to add something
>> in
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Philip Oakley wrote:
> From: "Felipe Contreras"
> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 1:45 AM
>> Ultimately this is not about people, this is about the code.
>
>
> In the case of helper functions this is not the case.
>
> The question would be better framed:
> "Does th
From: "Felipe Contreras"
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 1:45 AM
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Max Horn wrote:
On 04.04.2013, at 08:42, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Please consider [...]
Ultimately this is not about people, this is about the code.
In the case of helper functions this is n
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> A tool that is in contrib/ follows the contrib/README rule.
>
> I do not maintain it. Maintenance is up to the person who asked to
> include it there. I do ask the people who propose to add something
> in contrib/ to promise that they arran
Max Horn writes:
> OK, I'll try to keep a professional tone from now on :-).
>
> Please consider that the willingness of people to collaborate with
> you in any way is directly related to how you treat them. That
> includes bug reports. The way you acted towards Jed, who was very
> calmly and mat
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Max Horn wrote:
> On 04.04.2013, at 08:42, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Please consider that the willingness of people to collaborate with you in any
> way is directly related to how you treat them. That includes bug reports. The
> way you acted towards Jed, who wa
While I am not really interested in exchanging any further emails or any other
form of communication with Felipe, as I find his vitriolic style of
communication unbearable, I feel compelled to reply to a few points. I'll
probably regret this... anyway, I promise this will be my last mail in thi
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Max Horn wrote:
>> * internally, the marks are using the hg sha1s instead of the hg rev ids.
>> The latter are not necessarily invariant, and using the sha1s makes it much
>> easier to recover from semi-
Antoine Pelisse wrote:
> >> * internally, the marks are using the hg sha1s instead of the hg rev ids.
> >> The latter are not necessarily invariant, and using the sha1s makes it
> >> much easier to recover from semi-broken states.
> >
> > I doubt this makes any difference (except for more wasted
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
>> So,... is there a concrete proposal for _me_ to act on? Do you want
>> to see contrib/remtote-hg out of my tree, and have it compete with
>> the other one (which also shouldn't be in my tree) in the open?
>
> Three mo
Junio C Hamano writes:
> So,... is there a concrete proposal for _me_ to act on? Do you want
> to see contrib/remtote-hg out of my tree, and have it compete with
> the other one (which also shouldn't be in my tree) in the open?
Three months ago, I would have said yes. Now I don't know. It loo
Felipe Contreras writes:
> Where is the evidence? You say remote-hg doesn't work, I say it does,
> the difference is that I have evidence to prove it.
There are many projects that don't do what they claim. I gave remote-hg
a few minutes and moved on since (at the time) it didn't seem
interestin
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> Felipe Contreras writes:
>
>> I still don't see any good reason why a user might prefer gitifyhg,
>> even more importantly, why gitifyhg developers don't contribute to
>> remote-hg.
>
> Felipe, I read your blog announcement [1] and got the impre
Jed Brown writes:
> ... I felt that it was wildly oversold and that putting it into
> git.git was premature.
>
> I tried gitifyhg later and it basically worked out of the box. All
> known problems were marked by 'xfail' test cases. At that time,
> remote-hg failed almost all the gitifyhg tests
Felipe Contreras writes:
> I still don't see any good reason why a user might prefer gitifyhg,
> even more importantly, why gitifyhg developers don't contribute to
> remote-hg.
Felipe, I read your blog announcement [1] and got the impression that
remote-hg was ready for daily use. When I tried
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Max Horn wrote:
> I'll try to list some of remaining differences, mostly (in my biased opinion)
> improvements on the gitifyhg side. Note that some of these might be outdated
> with felipe's recent changes, i.e. I have not yet had time to review and/or
> test th
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:07 AM, Max Horn wrote:
>
> On 04.04.2013, at 08:46, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Felipe Contreras
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Max Horn wrote:
On 03.04.2013, at 03:31, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>>
> I only learned
On 04.04.2013, at 08:46, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Max Horn wrote:
>>> On 03.04.2013, at 03:31, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>
I only learned about it recently, I've looked at the history and to me
>
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Max Horn wrote:
>> On 03.04.2013, at 03:31, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>>> I only learned about it recently, I've looked at the history and to me
>>> it seems rather chaotic, and a lot of the code was simply
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Max Horn wrote:
> On 03.04.2013, at 03:31, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> I only learned about it recently, I've looked at the history and to me
>> it seems rather chaotic, and a lot of the code was simply copied from
>> git-remote-hg without comment.
>
> gitifyhg was
On 03.04.2013, at 03:31, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Max Horn wrote:
>>
>> On 02.04.2013, at 22:09, John Keeping wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:02:49PM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Here is the next round of patches for remote-hg, some which have b
>> * internally, the marks are using the hg sha1s instead of the hg rev ids.
>> The latter are not necessarily invariant, and using the sha1s makes it much
>> easier to recover from semi-broken states.
>
> I doubt this makes any difference (except for more wasted space).
I think this is definite
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
>> * added many new test cases, sadly still including some xfails. Several of
>> these (both passing and xfailing) also apply to remote-hg (i.e. the issue is
>> also present in contrib's remote-hg)
>
> I ran these test-cases with remote-hg
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Max Horn wrote:
>
> On 02.04.2013, at 22:09, John Keeping wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:02:49PM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> Here is the next round of patches for remote-hg, some which have been
>>> contributed through github.
>>>
>>> Fortunately it s
On 02.04.2013, at 22:09, John Keeping wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:02:49PM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Here is the next round of patches for remote-hg, some which have been
>> contributed through github.
>>
>> Fortunately it seems to be working for the most part, but there are some
Felipe Contreras writes:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>>> Fortunately it seems to be working for the most part, but there are some
>>> considerable issues while pushing branches and tags.
>>
>> Do you have a plan in mind what to do about "some considerable
>> issues"
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras writes:
>
>> Here is the next round of patches for remote-hg, some which have been
>> contributed through github.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> Fortunately it seems to be working for the most part, but there are some
>> considerable issu
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:02:49PM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Here is the next round of patches for remote-hg, some which have been
> contributed through github.
>
> Fortunately it seems to be working for the most part, but there are some
> considerable issues while pushing branches and tags
Felipe Contreras writes:
> Here is the next round of patches for remote-hg, some which have been
> contributed through github.
Thanks.
> Fortunately it seems to be working for the most part, but there are some
> considerable issues while pushing branches and tags.
Do you have a plan in mind wh
Hi,
Here is the next round of patches for remote-hg, some which have been
contributed through github.
Fortunately it seems to be working for the most part, but there are some
considerable issues while pushing branches and tags.
Dusty Phillips (1):
remote-hg: add missing config variable in doc
30 matches
Mail list logo
