Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:50:46 -0800 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: LK in a BK repository screen shots |
| |
On Tue, Nov 16, 1999 at 12:12:36PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Larry McVoy wrote: > > v0.0/linux-0.01 > > v0.0/linux-0.01 v0.0/linux-0.10 # cset 1.3 > > v0.0/linux-0.10 v0.0/linux-0.99.15j # cset 1.4 ... > > v2.1/linux-2.1.132 v2.2/linux-2.2.0 # cset 8.1 > > Being (to say the least) unused to CVS/RCS etc., I can't say I really > understand this script, so I better ask: Does the generated tree only > contain the mentioned kernels, or have you merged all the other patches > as well (ie. all the various v0.x kernels, all the different v1.x kernels > etc.)
I happen to agree with you but other people don't. So we have worked out a compromise: we're do a partial tree because there are people who want to work in BitKeeper on Linux and they all want to work on the same tree so they can all (eventually) sync up. One problem that BK has is that if the same tarball is used to create two different repositories, BK thinks that the repositories contain unrelated stuff.
Anyway, so what we did is come up with a way of leaving little markers in the files which say "this file may have a gap right here" so we can later go fill in the gaps for the people who want all the history and still interoperate with the people who want to work in a lighter weight pruned tree.
So everyone will be happy eventually :-) -- --- Larry McVoy lm@bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |