dulwich-users team mailing list archive

[Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 16:14 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 15:54 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 15:28 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> > On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 22:10 +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> >> >> >> I wonder why bitbucket Hg mirror of Dulwich was brought down from the
> >> >> >> list or repositories on http://samba.org/~jelmer/dulwich/ ?
> >> >> >> It would be convenient to submit patches there. I wonder if patches
> >> >> >> applied to Bitbucket mirror could be brought back to Git?
> >> >> > That repository was maintained by somebody else and it wasn't being kept
> >> >> > up to date, so I removed it from the list in order to prevent confusion.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Patches applied to the bitbucket mirror could certainly be brought back
> >> >> > to Git, but I'd prefer it if somebody else would maintain that mirror
> >> >> > and forward the patches upstream in a Git-compatible format (git
> >> >> > repository that can be merged, git-am-style patches or just a set of
> >> >> > unified diffs).
> >> >> I'm perfectly willing to maintain a bitbucket mirror,
> >> > Thanks :-)
> >> >
> >> >> <shameless plug> but why not just use hg-git? I do all my dulwich dev
> >> >> work using hg-git and it's fantastic.
> >> >> </shameless plug>
> >> > Well, I already use bzr-git for my Dulwich work and am very happy with
> >> > that. :-) I'd rather keep the amount of things that can go wrong when I
> >> > publish Dulwich limited.
> >> Right, I'm just questioning why we'd keep a mirror when there's a
> >> perfectly good tool available that could pull right from the real
> >> repo.
> > Isn't that just one way of creating the mirror? There'd have to be a
> > cronjob or something to do the pull though, and somebody needs to make
> > sure the versions of dulwich/hg/hg-git in use there stay working.
> hg convert would be better for creating a mirror. It just seems to me
> that if you really want people to provide patches, they should be
> working against the canonical central repo and not some mirror in
> another VCS.
I guess I'm not familiar enough with the differences between "hg
convert", hg-git's pull and bzr-hg's pull. As far as the bzr and git
branches of Dulwich are concerned they have the exact same contents,
just a different representation on disk. Is this different for
hg-git-created branches?

Cheers,

Jelmer