Re: 2.5 changeset 1.952.4.2 corrupt in fs/jfs/inode.c

From: Jamie Lokier (jamie@shareable.org)
Date: Wed Feb 12 2003 - 20:57:58 EST

Next message: Casey Schaufler: "Re: What went wrong with LSM, was: Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59"
Previous message: Randy.Dunlap: "Re: O_DIRECT foolish question"
In reply to: Jamie Lokier: "Re: 2.5 changeset 1.952.4.2 corrupt in fs/jfs/inode.c"
Next in thread: Kenneth Johansson: "Re: 2.5 changeset 1.952.4.2 corrupt in fs/jfs/inode.c"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I wrote:
> Why not rsync the SCCS tree and let others worry about format
> conversions? Presumably that would be much less work. (I'm
> presuming, I know).

Sorry if the tone of that seemed a bit harsh.

I mean that it might be less work for Larry to just mirror the SCCS tree
which Bitkeeper itself maintains - less overhead for Bitmover.

Just a suggestion.

cheers,
-- Jamie
-
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/

Next message: Casey Schaufler: "Re: What went wrong with LSM, was: Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59"
Previous message: Randy.Dunlap: "Re: O_DIRECT foolish question"
In reply to: Jamie Lokier: "Re: 2.5 changeset 1.952.4.2 corrupt in fs/jfs/inode.c"
Next in thread: Kenneth Johansson: "Re: 2.5 changeset 1.952.4.2 corrupt in fs/jfs/inode.c"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 22:00:45 EST