Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Apr 2003 08:21:57 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: BK->CVS, kernel.bkbits.net |
| |
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 07:45:49PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > Fast or safe, pick one. CVS has no integrity check and you will never know > if you have bad data or not. And the BK checks find el cheapo memory dimms > and all sorts of other problems all the time. It even found a cache aliasing > bug in SPARC/Linux... > > The BK integrity check will tell you right away if any of your data is bad. > *Everyone* hates the check until it saves their butt and then they decide > it's not such a bad idea. It's a lot like a seatbelt - you don't like it > until something goes wrong. > > BK != CVS. You want fast and loose, by all means, use CVS, that's not our > intended market and we don't care about fast where fast means bad data.
Well, 90% of the BK repositories are in read-only mode for me, i.e. just mirros of some public repository. I couldn't care less whether a corruption sneaked in, I'll just reclone as soon as the mainers complains my patches don't apply anymore :) So putting this get faster hints somewhere where they could be found easily (or even a go fast option for bk clone that applies this..) would be really nice.
- 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/
| |