On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Felipe, > > On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Felipe Contreras >> > <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> But fine, lets remove the tests out of the equation (150 lines), the >> >> number of lines of code still exceeds 3000. >> > >> > I don't think it's fair to just look at LOC, git-remote-hg when it was >> > just parsing was fairly simple. Most of the current code is our copy >> > of the python fast-import library which is only used to support >> > pushing to mercurial. >> >> Well, as a rule of thumb more code means more places for bugs to hide. > > Everybody on this list knows that. But it is equally true that more > functionality requires more code. Not necessarily. There's projects with more code and less functionality than their alternatives. >> It is also quite frankly rather difficult to navigate; very >> spaghetti-like. I have the feeling [...] > > Yours truly always welcomes constructive criticism. Other types of > criticism, not so much. > > As to the functionality you seek: git-remote-hg found in > git://github.com/msysgit/git works. It has the following advantages over > every other solution, including the one proposed in this thread: > > - it works > > - no really, it works Not for me. > - it supports pushes, too I don't care. When I need that I'll implement that with probably much less code. > - it matured over a long time So has CVS. > - there are tests Only a dozen of them. If I write the same tests for my solution would you be happier? I didn't think so. > - whenever we fixed bugs, we also added tests for the bug fixes Like this one? https://github.com/msysgit/git/commit/9f934c9987981cbecf4ebaf8eb4a8e9f1d002caf I don't see any tests for that. > - it is in constant use So you say, my impression is different. > Without push support, remote-hg is useless to me. Different people have different needs. Without an easy way to setup, remote-hg is useless to me. > If there are concerns about code style or unnecessary code (insofar it is > really unnecessary, testgit for example is not, unless you want to avoid > robust regression tests), I will discuss issues and collaborate. If the > idea was not to collaborate, but to show off how much shorter code can be > when it lacks functionality and proof of robustness I require for my > everyday use of the program, dismissing existing code and concepts, less > so. So your idea of collaboration is accept that your code is awesome, and my code sucks, and that I should fix your code, and throw my code to the trash, while you do absolutely nothing but complain about the whole situation. I have at least looked at your code. Have you even looked at mine? I've done my part in making my code easily available and ready for review. I will not reply to you anymore until you show your willingness to collaborate that you seem to demand for me, and: 1) Point to a remote-hg branch that is independent of msysgit stuff, or any other irrelevant stuff 2) Is based on top of a recent version of git Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html