[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Problems using new Linux-2.4 bitkeeper repository.
From said:
> If you get into a duplicate patch situation, you are far better off to
> pick one tree or the other tree as the official tree, and cherrypick
> the changes that the unofficial tree has and place them in the
> official tree. Then toss the unofficial tree. I can make you a "bk
> portpatch" command which does this, we have that already, it needs a
> bit of updating to catch the comments.

That's essentially what I had to write to move my trees over, so an official
one would be extremely useful. I do have the piece which catches the comments
if you want it. said:
> So, knowing that duplicate patches are a bad thing helps not in the
> least here...

If bitkeeper had a way of replacing duplicate patches, this would be extremely
useful. All I really needed to do was replace the keys in the changelog from
the garzik tree with the mareclo one to get my changes moved over. I think
essentially this could be done with a bk send|bk receive as long as I can tell
bitkeeper that it needs a substitute set of keys when applying the bkpatch.


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 13:21    [W:0.105 / U:0.932 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site