Perfarce extension for 1.6

Matt Mackall mpm at
Wed Jun 16 10:05:00 CDT 2010

On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:29 +0100, Frank Kingswood wrote:
> Dear all,
> We seem to be nearing the 1.6 feature freeze date, and I would like to
> offer the perfarce extension for inclusion.
> This was considered too early for 1.5, maybe this time?

I don't remember that early was the whole problem.. Ok, here's what I

I think most of that still applies. In particular:

- there's an implicit promise that we'll support it [1]
- we've got about one Perforce expert
- it opens the door to the other two bridge extensions

I don't have a whole lot of visibility into the bridge extension worlds,
but the one I'd probably merge first is hgsubversion - it's got the most
visible users. And I'm extremely wary of doing that... because it's got
a bunch of users.

The convert extension gets a disproportionate number of bugs filed
against it, many of which are well outside the expertise of most of us
because they're really about other systems. These bridge tools are each
more ambitious than what convert's trying to do so I can only expect
that the bugs will be hairier and the core developers more powerless to
address them.

We basically have to have a conversion story in core; bridge tools are
less essential and I don't think I've seen anything since 1.5 to
convince me that we'd benefit on the whole by more tightly packaging any
of them.

[1] Bear in mind that various people are selling support contracts where
this is more than implicit.
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list