Re: LK in a BK repository screen shots

Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com)
Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:50:46 -0800


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/