[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux 2.4 and BitKeeper
In article <>,
Larry McVoy <> wrote:
>Has anyone done this and made it work? It would save a lot of disk space
>and performance if someone were to so.

Hey, the _sane_ way to do it is to not have all those crappy SCCS
dependencies in all the tools, but to simply make a bk work area be a
real file tree!

Larry, your argument that there are tools that are SCCS-aware is just
not sane. For each tool that is SCCS-aware, I will name a hundred that
are not, and that you're not going to fix. The only sane way to make
_everything_ bitkeeper-aware is to keep the tree checked out and to keep
the bitkeeper files somewhere else.

Right now simple things like command-line completion and

find . -name '*.[chS]' | xargs grep xxxx

do not work, because they either don't find files or they find the wrong
ones (the internal bitkeeper files etc).

I'd much rather have a separate working area, ie if my repository is
under ~/BK/repository/kernel/linux-2.5, then the checked out tree would
be under ~/BK/repository/kernel/linux-2.5/workarea, and I would just
have a simple symbolic link from ~/v2.5 to the workarea (and never even
_see_ the BitKeeper files unless I thought I needed to).

None of this "special tools for normal actions" crap.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.094 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site