Messages in this thread | | | From | (Linus Torvalds) | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4 and BitKeeper | Date | Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:58:07 +0000 (UTC) |
| |
In article <20020315080408.D11940@work.bitmover.com>, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> wrote: > >Has anyone done this and made it work? It would save a lot of disk space >and performance if someone were to so.
Hey, the _sane_ way to do it is to not have all those crappy SCCS dependencies in all the tools, but to simply make a bk work area be a real file tree!
Larry, your argument that there are tools that are SCCS-aware is just not sane. For each tool that is SCCS-aware, I will name a hundred that are not, and that you're not going to fix. The only sane way to make _everything_ bitkeeper-aware is to keep the tree checked out and to keep the bitkeeper files somewhere else.
Right now simple things like command-line completion and
find . -name '*.[chS]' | xargs grep xxxx
do not work, because they either don't find files or they find the wrong ones (the internal bitkeeper files etc).
I'd much rather have a separate working area, ie if my repository is under ~/BK/repository/kernel/linux-2.5, then the checked out tree would be under ~/BK/repository/kernel/linux-2.5/workarea, and I would just have a simple symbolic link from ~/v2.5 to the workarea (and never even _see_ the BitKeeper files unless I thought I needed to).
None of this "special tools for normal actions" crap.
Linus - 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/
| |