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
29 matches
Mail list logo
