![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:27:20 -0500 Ben Collins wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 03:11:26PM +0300, Sergey Vlasov wrote: > > I see another missing feature - there does not seem to be a way to > > order the changesets by the order of merging them into the tree. E.g. > > when you look at the linux-2.4 changesets, you will now find XFS all > > over the place - even before 2.4.23, while it really has been merged > > after 2.4.23. > > You don't seem to understand how bitkeeper works then. Back when the XFS > tree was cloned from the 2.4 tree, it began it's own "branch". Over time > it has merged code from the 2.4 tree, and it's work has occured over > this same time. > > When XFS was merged back into the 2.4 tree, it retains all of that > history in sort of a split road looking branch/merge. Keeping that history is good. But the main 2.4 branch also has its own history - and it shows that there were no XFS code in that branch up to and including 2.4.23. There does not seem to be a way to get this information - at least through bkbits.net. - 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 13:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||