From: Jeff King <peff@peff•net>
To: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail•com>
Cc: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium•org>,
git@vger•kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>
Subject: Re: Announcing a new (prototype) git-remote-hg tool
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2014 00:06:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141206050628.GB31301@peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141205231330.GL16345@google.com>
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:13:30PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > 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.
That may be enough. For the most part you do not need to agree with
other members of the project on which implementation to use. My
experience with import tools has been that either:
1. you are using them personally (because you do not like the
upstream's choice of VCS and would prefer to transparently work in
your favorite tool), or
2. there is a group of developers who want to use git, but
somebody provides an unofficial git mirror. They do not have to
agree on the tool, because they just use git directly from the
mirror.
So it is mostly a personal choice. But the two confusions I'd still
anticipate are:
a. It's difficult to even _talk_ about the tools, because the names
are the same (so searching for tips on the tool, reporting bugs,
etc, are harder than necessary).
b. You may want different tools for different projects. If one tool is
much more efficient, you may need it for a large repo (e.g.,
mozilla). But another tool may provide other features, and you
would prefer it for smaller repos.
This is largely speculation, though, and I do not actively use the tools
myself. So I'd be happy to push off dealing with it until it itches
enough for somebody to scratch.
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-06 5:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-05 20:53 Announcing a new (prototype) git-remote-hg tool Mike Hommey
2014-12-05 22:13 ` Jonathan Nieder
2014-12-05 22:59 ` Jeff King
2014-12-05 23:13 ` Jonathan Nieder
2014-12-05 23:46 ` Mike Hommey
2014-12-06 5:06 ` Jeff King [this message]
2014-12-05 23:31 ` Mike Hommey
2014-12-05 22:44 ` Philip Oakley
2015-02-11 9:32 ` Announcing git-cinnabar 0.1.0 (Was: Announcing a new (prototype) git-remote-hg tool) Mike Hommey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141206050628.GB31301@peff.net \
--to=peff@peff$(echo .)net \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
--cc=jrnieder@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=mh@glandium$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox