Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:59:32 -0200 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin |
| |
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 07:35:03PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > > > How much of the out order stuff goes away if you could send changes > > > out of order as long as they did not overlap (touch the same files)? > > > > could this be made: 'as long as they do not touch the same lines of code, > > taking 3 lines of context into account'? (ie. unified diff definition of > > 'collisions' context.) > > No. What you described is diff/patch. We have that already and if it > really worked in all the cases there would be no need for BitKeeper to > exist. I'll be the first to admit that BK is too pedantic about > change ordering and atomicity, but you need to see that there is a > spectrum and if we slid BK over to what you described it would be a > meaningless tool,
OK, so why not put the boundary at the same point as where bitkeeper still manages to automatically merge branches and where it gives up ?
(this seems to be somewhat finer grained than the whole-file level, but more picky and intelligent than patch/diff)
regards,
Rik -- "Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS" -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
- 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/
| |