Jed Brown wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Jed Brown j...@59a2.org wrote:
...
We have
to assume that every Git (remote-hg) User is dealing with Hg Team
No, we don't.
Really? If there is no Hg Team, why bother with an Hg upstream?
Joachim Schmitz j...@schmitz-digital.de writes:
Jed Brown wrote:
Really? If there is no Hg Team, why bother with an Hg upstream?
Huh? the counterpart of every user wpuld be some users and not no user
or no HG team, isn't it?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but the whole
Ideally we shouldn't do this, as it's not recommended in mercurial
documentation, but there's no other way to push multiple bookmarks (on
the same branch), which would be the behavior most similar to git.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com
---
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Ideally we shouldn't do this, as it's not recommended in mercurial
documentation, but there's no other way to push multiple bookmarks (on
the same branch), which would be the behavior most similar to git.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Ideally we shouldn't do this, as it's not recommended in mercurial
documentation, but there's no other way to push multiple bookmarks (on
the same branch), which would be the behavior most similar to git.
The problem is that you're
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Ideally we shouldn't do this, as it's not recommended in mercurial
documentation, but there's no other way to push multiple bookmarks (on
the same branch), which would
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Ideally we shouldn't do this, as it's not recommended in mercurial
documentation, but there's no other way to push
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Jed Brown j...@59a2.org wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Ideally we shouldn't do this, as it's not recommended in mercurial
documentation, but there's no other way to push multiple bookmarks (on
the same branch), which would be the
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
If that's the case, they should disable in the server, just like some
people disable non-fast-forward pushes in git.
I don't know how to make Hg allow new branches and bookmarks, but not
new anonymous heads. Vanishly few Hg projects use a
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Jed Brown j...@59a2.org wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
If that's the case, they should disable in the server, just like some
people disable non-fast-forward pushes in git.
I don't know how to make Hg allow new branches and
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
will need to play by those rules.
No, we don't. The fact that you say so doesn't make it so.
Then perhaps we have different goals [1]. I don't know any Git User that
would prefer to have an Hg upstream accessed through remote-hg.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Jed Brown j...@59a2.org wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
will need to play by those rules.
No, we don't. The fact that you say so doesn't make it so.
Then perhaps we have different goals [1]. I don't know any Git User that
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Jed Brown j...@59a2.org wrote:
Then perhaps we have different goals [1]. I don't know any Git User that
would prefer to have an Hg upstream accessed through remote-hg.
Who cares? If you don't know somebody,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Jed Brown j...@59a2.org wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Jed Brown j...@59a2.org wrote:
Then perhaps we have different goals [1]. I don't know any Git User that
would prefer to have an Hg upstream
14 matches
Mail list logo
