archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?
@ 2014-05-11 23:34 Felipe Contreras
       [not found] ` <>
  2014-05-12  9:42 ` Michael Haggerty
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2014-05-11 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: git, git-fc
  Cc: Richard Hansen, Torsten Bögershausen, Antoine Pelisse,
	Christophe Simonis, Dusty Phillips, Jeff King, John Keeping


Recently Junio said he was willing to hear the opinion of other people
regarding the move from contrib to the core[1]. This move is already
under way, but suddenly Junio changed his mind.

I have repeatedly asked him to clarify what argument changed his mind,
but he hasn't done so. Hopefully he will do that in this thread, but
I'll jump ahead and assume it's this one by John Keeping[2]:

  I do not want to end up in a situation where an update to Git is
  blocked by a distribution because git-remote-hg is not updated to
  support newer versions of Mercurial sufficiently quickly; this
  previously happened in Gentoo due to git-svn and meant that was stuck
  on 1.7.8 until 1.7.13 was released [X].

Now, I feel I addressed this argument at length, specially in this
thread [3], but I'll try to provide a summary of the strongest arguments

 1) We can make the tests optional, say 't/optional'. So if they don't
    pass, the build of Git is not broken. Additionally, distributions
    might prefer to run test-essential if they don't want to run these
    optional tests.
 2) There's already continuous integration builds[4] to make sure all
    the possible incoming changes in Mercurial are detected early on.

 3) There has been a *single* case where a new Mercurial (3.0) broke
    things. This is due to the fact of how I implemented certain
    functionality due to limitations in Mercurial's API. Mercurial
    authors can be contacted to improve the API and minimize the
    possibility of it happening again.

Given these arguments, I don't see how moving git-remote-hg to the core
could possibly cause any problems, and I don't understand why Junio
would think otherwise. Even if such a breakage causes a problem to the
whole Git, it would make sense to demote these tools *when* such a
problem comes (which I argue it won't). Does it make sense to you that
you get thrown in jail for a crime you haven't committed merely because
someone thinks it's likely you will?

Given the huge amount of work I've put in these remote helpers, and the
fact that Junio said since day 1 he wanted these in the core[5] (and I
was operating under that assumption), I think the demotion back to the
contrib area (and therefore out-of-tree) should be made carefully, and
not from one day to he next as it happened.



Felipe Contreras

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2014-05-12 17:24 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-05-11 23:34 Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core? Felipe Contreras
     [not found] ` <>
2014-05-12  7:42   ` Felipe Contreras
2014-05-12  8:12     ` Felipe Contreras
2014-05-12 10:28       ` Stefan Beller
2014-05-12 12:05         ` Felipe Contreras
2014-05-12  9:42 ` Michael Haggerty
2014-05-12 10:35   ` Dennis Kaarsemaker
2014-05-12 10:37   ` Felipe Contreras
2014-05-12 12:05     ` Michael Haggerty
2014-05-12 12:29       ` Felipe Contreras
2014-05-12 13:12         ` David Kastrup
2014-05-12 17:12           ` Felipe Contreras
2014-05-12 13:43         ` Michael Haggerty
2014-05-12 17:13           ` Felipe Contreras
2014-05-12 11:00   ` David Kastrup
     [not found]   ` <>
2014-05-12 12:48     ` Felipe Contreras
2014-05-12 13:45       ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2014-05-12 16:13         ` Stefan Beller
2014-05-12 16:40         ` Felipe Contreras

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).