On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> I've looked at many hg<->git tools and none satisfy me. Too complicated, >> or too slow, or to difficult to setup, etc. > > The one I merged into Git for Windows (since that is what I install on all > my machines even if they run Linux) is rock-solid. It also comes with > tests. And it requires a fix I tried to get into git.git (but failed, > since I was asked to do much more in addition to what I needed for myself, > and I lack the time to address such requests these days).
Maybe, but who uses it? It's quite a lot of code, and it's quite difficult to setup--you would need a non-vanilla version of git. Compare this: 32 files changed, 3351 insertions(+), 289 deletions(-) To this: 1 file changed, 231 insertions(+) I would like to first get something that works in, and then step by step work on top of that. Anyway, I'm not even sure which version you are talking about, because there's plenty out there: https://github.com/SRabbelier/git/network > So I have to admit that I do not quite see the point of avoiding to > enhance the existing work of Sverre (and a little bit of me, too, in a > hackathon for which I traveled half the continent back in July 2011). It's way too much code, to be specific; 15x the code I just submitted. It would be better to work together, but to me the code-styles are way too different, the difference between night and day. If you are interested in simplifying that code, get rid of the classes of classes of classes and have something more consolidated, I could try to contribute, but I doubt that's the case. Anyway, this is 231 lines of code, and works just fine, which is better than what we have in git.git for mercurial: basically nothing. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
