On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:13:30PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Jeff King wrote: > > > One of the nice things about spinning remote-hg out of the core repo is > > that it means we do not have to endorse a particular implementation, and > > they can compete with each other on their merits. > > True. > > [...] > > It's a shame that both squat on the name "remote-hg", because it makes > > it difficult to tell the two apart. But of course that is the only way > > to make "git clone hg::..." work. Maybe we need a layer of indirection? > > :) > > If the helpers are roughly interchangeable (that is, if you can switch > between fetching using each one into the same on-disk git repository), > then picking one to symlink as git-remote-hg in your $PATH should be > enough. > > If they don't have that level of interoperability, then there's an > argument to be made that the URLs shouldn't be the same. I don't think Felipe's and the one that uses hg-git under the hood are already interoperable. Mine is also different from both. They should all produce the same git trees. They don't produce the same commits. They also don't share the same metadata. Mike -- 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