Re: [PATCH] contrib: remote-helpers: add move warnings (v2.0)

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > The tools are now maintained out-of-tree, and they have a regression in
> > v2.0.
> 
> You seem not to understand at all what a regression is.
> 
> My understanding is that versions of remote-hg shipped with all
> versions of Git did not work with Hg 3.0, so not working with Hg 3.0
> is a regression in v2.0 at all.

I explained to you multiple times already that is a different issue, but
it somehow doesn't get through your skull.

Let me try a different approach.

git-remote-bzr has a regression in Git v2.0.

Did you get the BAZAAR part? That's right, this is unrelated to
Mercurial v3.0 because it doesn't have anything to do with Mercurial.

*BOTH* git-remote-hg and git-remote-bzr have a regression in Git v2.0.

> A recent report was about Hg 3.0 not working with 1.9.3, but I think
> you earlier said all versions of Git does not work with Hg 3.0, and I
> can believe it.  That is hardly a regression.
> 
> You could argue that Hg has a new regression to its external users
> of its API when it went to 3.0.  We actually had a similar breakage
> in 1.5.4, where it was reported late in the cycle after -rc0 [*1*]
> that cgit that linked with our internal API libgit.a was broken by a
> change on our side, which resulted in us fixing the breakage (even
> though technically you may be able to say that it was cgit's fault
> to link with libgit.a in the first place) with 18125644 (Move
> sha1_file_to_archive into libgit, 2008-01-14) very late in the
> cycle.  Calling that a regression in cgit would have been insane,
> even if we did not patch our side up to accomodate it.
> 
> Stop this idiocy.

Sigh, you just don't seem to understand that you are thinking about a
different issue. I don't think there's any other way I can explain it to
you.

-- 
Felipe Contreras