[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.
Larry McVoy wrote:

>On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 11:41:27AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>I started with Linus's linux-2.4 repo and so did Marcelo. We
>>independently checked in 2.4.recent patches (including proper renametool
>>use), which included the ia64 and mips merges, which added a ton of
>OK, so there is the root cause. It's time to talk about duplicate changes.

>There are things we can do in BK to deal with this, but they are not easy
>and are going to take several months, is my guess. I'd like to see if you
>can work around this by avoiding duplicate patches. If you can, do so,
>you will save yourself lots of grief.

>You really want to listen to this, I'm trying to head you off from screwing
>up the history. If you get 300 renames like this, it's almost always a
>duplicate patch scenario.

I know why it happened, silly.

This was just an example of a real world example that actually happened,
where BK sucked ass :)

Marcelo's BK tree did not exist when I created my marcelo-2.4 tree.
marcelo-2.4 repo existed for a while and people started using it. Once
Marcelo appeared with his "official" BK tree, people naturally want to
migrate. There were two migration paths: (1) export everything to GNU
patches, or (2) click the mouse 300 times.

So, knowing that duplicate patches are a bad thing helps not in the
least here...


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 13:24    [W:0.095 / U:6.252 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site