dulwich-users team mailing list archive

[Augie Fackler <durin42@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?

Due to tag system differences, hg-git won't convert tags in a way that
they'll be properly transmitted to other hg users. That's fixable with
bookmarks and pushkey, but pushkey is presently vaporware.

>
> Cheers,
>
> Jelmer
>