Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> 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 -- 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