Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:05:26 -0500 | | From | Jeff Garzik <> | | Subject | Re: Problems using new Linux-2.4 bitkeeper repository. |
| |
Larry McVoy wrote:
>>I think a fair question would be, is this scenario going to occur often? >> I don't know. But I'll bet you -will- see it come up again in kernel >>development. Why? We are exercising the distributed nature of the >>BitKeeper system. The system currently punishes Joe in Alaska and >>Mikhail in Russia if they independently apply the same GNU patch, and >>then later on wind up attempting to converge trees. >> > >Indeed. So speak in file systems, because a BK package is basically a file >system, with multiple distributed instances, all of which may be out of >sync. The problems show up when the same patch is applied N times and >then comes together. The inodes collide. Right now, you think that's >the problem, and want BK to fix it. We can fix that. But that's not >the real problem. The real problem is N sets of diffs being applied >and then merged. The revision history ends up with the data inserted N >times. >
Another thought, that I'm betting you laugh at me for even suggesting :)
Don't insert the data N times. Give the user the option to say that one or more changesets are actually the same one. In filesystem speak, unlink a file B which is a user-confirmed duplicate of file A, and re-create file B as a symlink to file A. Or just unlink file B without the symlink, whichever metaphor suits you better. :)
Yes it is "altering history"... but... OTOH the user has just told BitKeeper, in no uncertain terms, that he is altering history only to make it more correct.
From a user interface perspective, the user would pick one of N changeset comments to be considered the "real" one.
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |