[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?
> Larry McVoy <> said:
> > Thanks, we agree completely. It's actually an impossible problem
> > for a program since it requires semantic knowledge of the content
> > under revision control.
> So, another option would be to have the developer define explicit
> for his changesets, but I fear that might prove to cumbersome, too.
If you spend the effort to do _that_, you might as well clone your BK
tree and prune it back to a state which conceivably has only the
changes which you depend on.

Another problem with that approach, however, is that if everybody
does it then the kernel's version tree, as evident in "bk revtool",
gets totally unreadable. It is already an order of magnitude too
complicated. :-(

Matthias Urlichs
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 13:22    [W:0.039 / U:10.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site