Re: [PATCH v2 11/13] remote-hg: force remote push

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Jed Brown [off-list ref] wrote:

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:


[...]

quoted

quoted

will need to play by those rules.

No, we don't. The fact that you say so doesn't make it so.

Then perhaps we have different goals [1].  I don't know any Git User that
would prefer to have an Hg upstream accessed through remote-hg.

Who cares? If you don't know somebody, does that mean such person doesn't exist?

We have
to assume that every Git (remote-hg) User is dealing with Hg Team

No, we don't.

that
is setting the rules, since otherwise Git User would just change the
whole damn project to Git and be done with it.  In that sense, it is
inappropriate to do things that are likely to make Hg Team yell at Git
User.

If you are always going to do Mercurial workflows, then what's the
point of using Git?

quoted

I create a branch felipec-bookmarks, and I push as many heads as I
wish. Who will get affected? Nobody.

Every Hg user will see those heads by default every time they run 'hg
log' or 'hg heads'.

Wow, catastrophic. BTW. Any commit pushed will show in 'hg log' either
way. And who will run 'hg heads' if, according to you, the project has
stated that new heads should not be pushed? If no new heads are
pushed, 'hg heads' will never show anything interesting.

Is that the *HUGE* problem? Too many heads will show in the arcane 'hg heads'?

quoted

And who says we are committing upstream?

The discussion is moot if you don't want to push your commits upstream.

There are so many workflows and use cases you are completely ignoring.

Anyway, I'm not going to discuss with you any more, a configuration
option would work perfectly, and curiously you didn't comment on that.
It's quite clear that you are arguing for the sake of arguing, or at
least not looking for a solution.

Bye.

-- 
Felipe Contreras