Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes: > > Really? Based on what reasoning? I have proven his reasoning to be > > basically wrong. > > Perhaps s/proven/convinced myself only/; you didn't prove it to me > and I doubt you proved it to John.
And you are still conveniently avoiding the question: Based on what reasoning? > > Of course it wasn't a mistake. > > I doubt about the "Of course" part. The first reaction after seeing > that the new "changegroup" is used only inside check_version(3,0) > and nowhere else was to wonder if that import is necessary (or even > safe) for the pre-v3.0 versions. I don't care about your first reaction. If that was only present in newer versions, how do you think it would pass the testing on older versions? https://travis-ci.org/felipec/git Normally I would explain the details of why this is the case, and send the crash regresion fix for v2.0 with a clear explanation, but since you are adamant in threating git-remote-hg/bzr as just another crappy contrib script that doesn't even have tests like diff-highlight or hg-to-git. Why would I care? The fact that I'm the maintainer and I say it'ss good should be good enough, and if the current version in "master" renders unusable the existing Mercurial clones, hey, it's only in contrib, right? -- 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
