lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] struct page, new bk tree
Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>
> In my opinion the idea of cset -x (while usefull) is fundamentally
> broken. The result of this is that ideas like blacklist need to be
> considered. I would propose instead an undo -x, that would
> generate a cset to reverse the one following the -x. This might
> lead to conflicts - these would be resolved the normal bk fashion.
> If bk handled ¯bad¯ csets in this manner there would be no need for
> blacklists - it is more robust in that you can always used undo -x.

Well, if the changes are properly split up, you shouldn't need to do
this... In the ideal situation it is easiest for Linus to accept or
reject a "bk pull" in its entirety. Then he can just do a "bk unpull"

Jeff



--
Jeff Garzik | "Why is it that attractive girls like you
Building 1024 | always seem to have a boyfriend?"
MandrakeSoft | "Because I'm a nympho that owns a brewery?"
| - BBC TV show "Coupling"
-
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:0.042 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site