[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Suggestion re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
On Sunday 21 April 2002 20:12, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 03:54:04AM +1000, CaT wrote:
> > That's what I meant. Email gets sent out to LKML when the patch gets sent
> > to BK for approval by Linus. Another email can then be sent out (unless
> > it's felt that it's too verbose to do so) when Linus accepts it into the
> > tree. (unless I'm missing something about BK ;)
> This doesn't work -- there is no BK _push_ to Linus. There is no "sent
> to BK for approval."
> Traditional RFC822 email is sent to Linus, telling him that there are BK
> changesets to be picked up. A human-defined length of time ensues,
> after which Linus either ignores or comments on the email, and either
> does a 'bk pull' or not.

At the moment I'm thinking about returning to the patchbot project (by the
way, code *is* available now) and reworking it to handle both BK and GNU
patches. The advantage of the patchbot is, it can do things like sniff
patches for NOTIFYMEONCHANGE directives, auto-CC a linux-patches list,
etc. It could act as an accumulator of GNU patches into a BK repository,
waiting for Linus to pull, and in the interim, all interested observers
could also peek into the repository.

Hmm, I'm sensing a practical project here.

> Very similar to the way GNU patches are handled, strangely enough ;-)

Yes, well that was never completely satisfying to say the least. IMHO, BK
is helping improve the situation, but comes with its own issues, not all of
them technical.

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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean