[ANN] MacHg 0.9.6 released

[Jason Harris]

On Jun 4, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:

> On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 14:25 +0200, Jason Harris wrote:
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> I of course have debated about this but there are several reasons not
>> to use the standard system hg.
> 
> What you have here is actually a laundry list of reasons for me to
> disrecommend and not support people using your tool.

Wow! Have you ever even used MacHg?


> - Use a current hg. It's a serious disservice to your users to do
> anything else, as we can't fix their bugs. And we're going to be pretty
> annoyed when we hear about them again.

The point is to isolate the Mercurial version so its stable, while MacHg changes go ahead. See eg Mercurial 1.5.2->1.5.3 if I had used the recent version I keep my users more on the bleeding edge. I don't want to do that. The software that people should use should be long term stable. I am trying for that.


> - Don't add private patches to hg. If you need something patched in hg,
> send us a patch. Double demerits for using buggy patches to deal with
> bugs in your tool.

Huhh? I have asked about this feature repeatedly on the lists. Best response I got was from Benoit. Basically your response was "Tough luck!' well how was I as a developer of MacHg meant to work around that? I did what I had to do to make the product work. I have been nothing but friendly about asking for a way around this problem....


> - Don't subvert the well-documented Mercurial config process. Use
> HGPLAIN, it's what it's freaking there for. If that causes problems,
> send us patches.

Well there is the HGRCPATH which is documented for exactly this kind of thing. I am about to use it. I don't want MacHg to stomp on the users ~/.hgrc Ie I want MacHg to not write stuff to the users ~/.hgrc


> - If you run into bugs or performance regressions, tell us about them.
> Preferably PROMPTLY. Yes, I'm still pissed about that.

What? You are pissed? At what?  I have been nothing but responsive!   What about my questions about versioning?  What about my questions re, this racing bug? and asking for a nice way to work around it?  What about my questions re undo? What about my questions re: error messages and the best way to detect when something is truly an error?  All these have met with largely a deafening silence from you... 

There are a number of issues in writing a client for Mercurial and things that I have noted which can be improved. So, you are mad that one of the various issues I have posted, wasn't posted sooner than the others?!?

I can list all my issues I have had with Mercurial, but the responses I have received have not encouraged me in that I will get an active response. Eg take the issue of multiple undo and my request here... This is something I see as fairly critical to the smooth usability of Mercurial. Yet you as the leader of Mercurial have not yet commented if (a) this is long term something you want or don't want (b) if there is a better way to do this or anything. Basically I still don't know where this stands so of course after multiple posts to the list and the *community* I am going to forge ahead with patches to make this work. Would you expect anything else?? if there is another avenue where I should try and get the attention of the Mercurial team then I am unaware of it. Please tell me so I can start forwarding the issues I have already forwarded to them again...

Wow... Still kind of stunned about this....


> In short, come out of your walled garden and work with the community.

What!?! What are you talking about? In what way haven't I worked with the community?!? My source code is open, I am responsive to the issues posted to me... I have posted often to the mailing lists...

Frankly I am kind of stunned at your email here....
   Jason