William Giokas wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:21:36AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > How exactly would it be better?
> >
> > If you concede that the Git release wouldn't be affected, then assuming
> > a hypothetical future where git-remote-hg is bundled, and we have a
> > Mercurial API br
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:21:36AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> How exactly would it be better?
>
> If you concede that the Git release wouldn't be affected, then assuming
> a hypothetical future where git-remote-hg is bundled, and we have a
> Mercurial API breakage, we would have:
>
> Git <
William Giokas wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:08:51AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > This is a red herring. Ignore the fact that it will never happen (which
> > it won't), the next point remains a FACT, and you conveniently ignore
> > it.
>
> It may not block git being released, but as we
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:08:51AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Felipe Contreras writes:
>
> > > == contrib vs. core ==
> > >
> > > This is the only point relevant to contrib vs. core:
> > >
> > > > - We may be painted in a hard place if remote-hg or remote-bzr tak
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras writes:
> > == contrib vs. core ==
> >
> > This is the only point relevant to contrib vs. core:
> >
> > > - We may be painted in a hard place if remote-hg or remote-bzr take
> > >us to a position where the Git as a whole is blocked while it is
> > >
Felipe Contreras writes:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras writes:
>> > Junio never explained his *TECHNICAL* reason, and Michael Haggerty
>> > simply said "there are good technical arguments for and against
>> > moving git-remote-hg out of contrib", that was all his explanation for
>>
Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
> > Do we no longer have to be afraid of that? WHY? All the responses from
> > the contrib cleanup patches seem to suggest that pretty much *everyone*
>
> The responses also been clear in that you are toxic.
You
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> Do we no longer have to be afraid of that? WHY? All the responses from
> the contrib cleanup patches seem to suggest that pretty much *everyone*
The responses also been clear in that you are toxic. You've hijacked
this mailing list on a p
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras writes:
> > Junio never explained his *TECHNICAL* reason, and Michael Haggerty
> > simply said "there are good technical arguments for and against
> > moving git-remote-hg out of contrib", that was all his explanation for
> > the *TECHNICAL* reason.
> I am
Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 02:35:08PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> > Prior to his decision there were no complaints about my "manners" since
> > I returned. It was his *TECHNICAL* decision that triggered this.
>
> There have been several complaints about your behavior since
Felipe Contreras writes:
> Philippe Vaucher wrote:
>> >> I have had patches and contributions rejected in the past, sometimes
>> >> rudely. Same has happened to many others, if you contribute long
>> >> enough, it is pretty much guaranteed that it will happen to you.
>> >> Maintainer is wrong, or
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 02:35:08PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Prior to his decision there were no complaints about my "manners" since
> I returned. It was his *TECHNICAL* decision that triggered this.
There have been several complaints about your behavior since you
returned[1,2,3,4], in add
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> You are not paying attention at all.
Junio may have been trying to be polite and not tell you directly that
attitude was a factor. Whatever. He is the maintainer. Of all the
folks in this list, he gets to call the shots when the criteria
Philippe Vaucher wrote:
> >> I have had patches and contributions rejected in the past, sometimes
> >> rudely. Same has happened to many others, if you contribute long
> >> enough, it is pretty much guaranteed that it will happen to you.
> >> Maintainer is wrong, or you are wrong, or someone is jus
>> I have had patches and contributions rejected in the past, sometimes
>> rudely. Same has happened to many others, if you contribute long
>> enough, it is pretty much guaranteed that it will happen to you.
>> Maintainer is wrong, or you are wrong, or someone is just having a bad
>> day.
>
> This
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras writes:
>
> > Junio, do you honestly think I am a troll?
>
> You certainly are acting like one, aren't you?
I'm deeply offended by the fact that would think that I'm purposely
intent on provoking people, or disrupting more important discussions.
I under
Martin Langhoff wrote:
> I have had patches and contributions rejected in the past, sometimes
> rudely. Same has happened to many others, if you contribute long
> enough, it is pretty much guaranteed that it will happen to you.
> Maintainer is wrong, or you are wrong, or someone is just having a b
Felipe,
someone can contribute positively, and also be very destructive.
Your positive contributions, nobody will deny.
However, you have to tame the other part to be good company.
I have had patches and contributions rejected in the past, sometimes
rudely. Same has happened to many others, if
Felipe Contreras writes:
> Junio, do you honestly think I am a troll?
You certainly are acting like one, aren't you?
--
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-i
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Martin Langhoff writes:
>
> > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Felipe Contreras
> > wrote:
> >> You are once more twisting the sequence of events.
> >
> > Found this gem looking for background to the proposed removal to code of
> > mine.
> >
> > Felipe, if you are wanting
Martin Langhoff writes:
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> You are once more twisting the sequence of events.
>
> Found this gem looking for background to the proposed removal to code of mine.
>
> Felipe, if you are wanting to have a war of words with Junio, go have
>
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> You are once more twisting the sequence of events.
Found this gem looking for background to the proposed removal to code of mine.
Felipe, if you are wanting to have a war of words with Junio, go have
it, with him. I don't know (nor care)
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras writes:
>
> > There is no guideline as for what should be part of contrib.
> >
> > Some tools are actively maintained, others consist of a single commit.
> > Some tools have active user-base, some aren't used by anyone. Some tools
> > are on the path towar
Felipe Contreras writes:
> There is no guideline as for what should be part of contrib.
>
> Some tools are actively maintained, others consist of a single commit.
> Some tools have active user-base, some aren't used by anyone. Some tools
> are on the path towards the core, others will never get t
There is no guideline as for what should be part of contrib.
Some tools are actively maintained, others consist of a single commit.
Some tools have active user-base, some aren't used by anyone. Some tools
are on the path towards the core, others will never get there. Some
tools are already out-of-
25 matches
Mail list logo
