Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 16 Mar 2002 12:06:10 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Problems using new Linux-2.4 bitkeeper repository. |
| |
Larry McVoy wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 11:41:27AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>I started with Linus's linux-2.4 repo and so did Marcelo. We >>independently checked in 2.4.recent patches (including proper renametool >>use), which included the ia64 and mips merges, which added a ton of >>files. >> > >OK, so there is the root cause. It's time to talk about duplicate changes. > [...]
>There are things we can do in BK to deal with this, but they are not easy >and are going to take several months, is my guess. I'd like to see if you >can work around this by avoiding duplicate patches. If you can, do so, >you will save yourself lots of grief. > [...]
>You really want to listen to this, I'm trying to head you off from screwing >up the history. If you get 300 renames like this, it's almost always a >duplicate patch scenario. >
I know why it happened, silly.
This was just an example of a real world example that actually happened, where BK sucked ass :)
Marcelo's BK tree did not exist when I created my marcelo-2.4 tree. marcelo-2.4 repo existed for a while and people started using it. Once Marcelo appeared with his "official" BK tree, people naturally want to migrate. There were two migration paths: (1) export everything to GNU patches, or (2) click the mouse 300 times.
So, knowing that duplicate patches are a bad thing helps not in the least here...
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/
| |