Re: [PATCH 00/13] remote-hg: general updates

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] 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
interesting enough to be worth the effort of making proper bug reports.
There's a lot of low-quality code in the world and I'm willing to
tolerate a certain false-positive rate.  I apologize for misdiagnosing
your project and I'm happy to believe that you have since fixed the
bugs.  I was merely answering you question of why some of us contributed
to gitifyhg in preference to remote-hg.

I see no value in dwelling on the value judgement I made a few months
ago.  Additionally, I have almost no use for either project any more.

remote-hg doesn't fail with the non-fast-forward error, in fact, it
doesn't fail at all, it pushes correctly, and that's reported as a
failure.

I don't agree that force-pushing by default is "correct" behavior.