Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Feb 2003 21:10:55 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: 2.5 changeset 1.952.4.2 corrupt in fs/jfs/inode.c |
| |
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 02:04:21PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > On Wednesday 05 February 2003 11:40, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > I'd appreciate if you could check why bitkeeper thinks such function > > is nobh_truncate_page and not block_truncate_page as my GPL software > > pretends while it checkouts all the changesets from the bitkeeper > > servers. > > Andrea, > The change from block_truncate_page to nobh_truncate_page was done in > Changeset 1.879.43.1. This was created on January 9th, but not merged > into Linus' tree until Monday, so it is not in 2.5.59. I think the
if you think it's normal the thing sounds very messy. I mean, how can a changeset be numbered 1.879.43.1 and not be included in 2.5.59?
The way I understood it is that when Linus merges "stuff", this "stuff" gets a changeset number in the future, not in the past. No matter if the "stuff" was created in the past. Is this the case or not?
I mean, somehow there must be a way to number the changesets so that applying them in order generates something coherent.
Andrea - 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/
| |