Subject: Re: Announcing a new (prototype) git-remote-hg tool

From: Jonathan Nieder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 15:13:30 -0800

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.
Unfortunately url.*.insteadof rules are resolved at fetch time instead
of being resolved once and the result recorded in .git/config.  So
yes, it seems like a way to have abbreviations for URLs (e.g., hg::
meaning hg+mh:: or hg+fc::) that get resolved at clone time would be
useful.  It's a layer of indirection we don't provide. :/

Thanks,
Jonathan