Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] New remote-hg helper

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> As a rule, I don't see much value in writing a framework that works
> only for one case, that smells more like over-engineering. If we had
> two cases (hg and bzr), then we might be able to know with a modicum
> of certainty what such a framework should have. So I would prefer to
> have two standalone remote-helpers, and _then_ do a framework to
> simplify both, but not before. But that's my personal opinion.
>
> Now that I have free time, I might be able to spend time writing such
> a proof-of-concept remote-bzr, and a simple framework. But I would be
> concentrated on remote-hg.

Actually, there's no point in that; there's already a git-remote-bzr:

http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~bzr-git/bzr-git/trunk/view/head:/git-remote-bzr

So, what do we need a python framework for?

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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]