[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:0.026 / U:14.068 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site