On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 01:59:56PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > Instead of doing this stuff half-assed, just convince Linus to use BK :)
>
> I don't care what Linus uses, but Linus decision should not lock other
> developers into using the same tools, e.g. it should not become
> inconvenient to send simple patches. The basic communication tools should
> still be mail and patches. What we IMO need is a patch management system
> not a source management system.
BK can happily be used as a patch management system and it can, and has
for years, been able to accept and generate traditional patches. Linus
could maintain the source in a BK tree and make it available as both
a BK tree and traditional patches. It's a one line command to generate
a release patch and another one line command to generate the release
tarball.
By the way, you can send BK patches exactly the way that you send regular
patches, with the difference being that BK has an optional way of wrapping
them up in uuencode (or whatever) so that mailers don't stomp on them.
-- --- Larry McVoy lm at 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.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 21:01:19 EST