A change of maintainership for Mercurial [LWN.net]

A change of maintainership for Mercurial

Posted Jan 27, 2016 3:25 UTC (Wed) by zuki (subscriber, #41808)
In reply to: A change of maintainership for Mercurial by viro
Parent article: A change of maintainership for Mercurial

Of course it can be done. Why isn't something as reliable the default?

A change of maintainership for Mercurial

Posted Jan 27, 2016 4:29 UTC (Wed) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link]

Ask git developers; I'm not one.

A change of maintainership for Mercurial

Posted Jan 27, 2016 12:40 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

Because with Git, this kind of thing is always a "feature", whereas in any other tool it is a frequently-paraded "deal-breaker" that instantly sent the person opining on such matters back to Git, regardless of any accompanying loss of convenience. (But with the apparent benefit of silencing the gathered crowd who were pestering the individual concerned about not using Git - and having all their repositories on GitHub - in the first place.)

Resumable data transfer

Posted Jan 28, 2016 11:43 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] (1 responses)

Why doesn't this work if you just have working TCP? Merely losing the ability to move IP packets for a few seconds shouldn't cause TCP itself any trouble, they'll be queued or retried automatically. It's crazy for us to insist on doing all this work, again, in every high level application protocol.

Or is this problem that in fact people are stuck with "Internet" service providers who are actually more like "Internet Explorer service providers", offering a half-hearted commitment that web browsers will sort-of work, mostly and nothing resembling actual Internet service except as a coincidence?

Resumable data transfer

Posted Jan 28, 2016 13:17 UTC (Thu) by zuki (subscriber, #41808) [Link]

> Why doesn't this work if you just have working TCP?

This is not about short interruptions, but about the TCP stream going down. Maybe if we had STCP...