lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Problems using new Linux-2.4 bitkeeper repository.
    On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 12:06:10PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
    > This was just an example of a real world example that actually happened,
    > where BK sucked ass :)

    Think file systems. Think 2 file systems. Think creating duplicate inodes
    in the same place. Now those 2 file systems are merged into a third, the
    duplicates removed. The original 2 still both exist and are both being
    updated.

    > 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.

    There is a 3rd: factor out the duplicates and and export/import only the
    ones that Marcelo didn't have, then dump your tree and use his.
    --
    ---
    Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.031 / U:30.148 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site