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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site