Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] remote-hg: general updates

From: Jed Brown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:01:07 -0500

Felipe Contreras <[email-masked]> writes:

> Where is the evidence? You say remote-hg doesn't work, I say it does,
> the difference is that I have evidence to prove it.

There are many projects that don't do what they claim.  I gave remote-hg
a few minutes and moved on since (at the time) it didn't seem
interesting enough to be worth the effort of making proper bug reports.
There's a lot of low-quality code in the world and I'm willing to
tolerate a certain false-positive rate.  I apologize for misdiagnosing
your project and I'm happy to believe that you have since fixed the
bugs.  I was merely answering you question of why some of us contributed
to gitifyhg in preference to remote-hg.

I see no value in dwelling on the value judgement I made a few months
ago.  Additionally, I have almost no use for either project any more.

> remote-hg doesn't fail with the non-fast-forward error, in fact, it
> doesn't fail at all, it pushes correctly, and that's reported as a
> failure.

I don't agree that force-pushing by default is "correct" behavior.