Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: Problems using new Linux-2.4 bitkeeper repository. | Date | Sat, 16 Mar 2002 12:17:01 -0500 | From | James Bottomley <> |
| |
lm@bitmover.com 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.
jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com 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.
James
- 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/
|  |