Re: [PATCH] Add new git-remote-hd helper

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Johannes Schindelin
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012, Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Johannes Schindelin
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Without push support, remote-hg is useless to me. Without regression
tests proving that it is rock solid, I will not use remote-hg.

Done and done. My remote-hg now has support for pushing, all in less
than 500 lines of code. It also manages to pass all 14 of the "extensive
tests" of your remote-hg. Anything else?

While I think that a lot of effort was duplicated now, and while I am
still interested in less handwaving arguments than "I find the code
bloated",

The only way to avoid duplicated effort is to work together, and I've
yet to see where the remote-hg branch is supposed to be (without any
msysgit stuff), so that other people can give it a try, and propose
changes.

P.S.: Sverre's remote-hg does not really handle octopus merges. It is
incomplete. I had a good plan how to complete it (see the msysGit wiki
page about remote-hg) but lacked the time to implement it (the problem is
that hg does not have octopus merges, and we want things to be
bidirectional).

Yeah, I'm aware mercurial doesn't have those, that's why I didn't
implement that, other tools do something similar as you mention in the
wiki, but the code is rather convoluted.

Note that this doesn't prevent things to be bidirectional, what it
prevents is using this tool to export git repositories to mercurial,
not the other way around. If you do an octopus merge on a repository
that you know is going to end in mercurial, that's just asking for
trouble, and complaints from the other users of that repo.

Anyway, I don't think that feature is that important, what is more
important is to make sure renames and branches are stored properly. I
have tests that check that the output is the the same as hg-git, but
I'm still not there.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras