Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: Suggestion re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree | Date | Sat, 20 Apr 2002 20:23:49 +0200 |
| |
On Sunday 21 April 2002 20:12, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 03:54:04AM +1000, CaT wrote: > > That's what I meant. Email gets sent out to LKML when the patch gets sent > > to BK for approval by Linus. Another email can then be sent out (unless > > it's felt that it's too verbose to do so) when Linus accepts it into the > > tree. (unless I'm missing something about BK ;) > > This doesn't work -- there is no BK _push_ to Linus. There is no "sent > to BK for approval." > > Traditional RFC822 email is sent to Linus, telling him that there are BK > changesets to be picked up. A human-defined length of time ensues, > after which Linus either ignores or comments on the email, and either > does a 'bk pull' or not.
At the moment I'm thinking about returning to the patchbot project (by the way, code *is* available now) and reworking it to handle both BK and GNU patches. The advantage of the patchbot is, it can do things like sniff patches for NOTIFYMEONCHANGE directives, auto-CC a linux-patches list, etc. It could act as an accumulator of GNU patches into a BK repository, waiting for Linus to pull, and in the interim, all interested observers could also peek into the repository.
Hmm, I'm sensing a practical project here.
> Very similar to the way GNU patches are handled, strangely enough ;-)
Yes, well that was never completely satisfying to say the least. IMHO, BK is helping improve the situation, but comes with its own issues, not all of them technical.
-- Daniel - 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/
| |